As a result, a dramatic impact has been made on the average duration of life; a change that has given rise to sign efficient amount of new social and ethical encounters. In this essay, will focus on those areas concerning palliative care, euthanasia, and doctor prescribed suicide, in relation to their ethical framework. When pondering the ethical nature of specific acts in healthcare, one of the more obvious choices to begin assessment is with the American Medical Associations Code of Ethics.
This code of ethics are not lawful requirements, but rather a standard of conduct that illustrates the behavior expected by Hessians and/or those in the medical field (AMA CEO, 2013). Concerning medical assistance in the act of cataloging death, the code of ethics seems to remain relatively ambiguous. The overall expectation, according to the code, is that patients are provided the best available care, and that those providing care should uphold the dedication to do so with the patients best interest in mind (AMA CEO, 2013).
The argument can be made that under the choice of the patient, choosing a painless medical death over suffering the symptoms of an incurable, or terminal disease could still be considered acceptable ender the medical care illustrated by the code of ethics, which I tend to side with. However, one could also interpret the code of ethics to oppose this idea, suggesting that the primary purpose of healthcare is maintain life, and the code of ethics definition of proper medical care falls under that umbrella.
A patient may choose death prematurely because they wish not to suffer, but a physician may be able to cure them or treat their symptoms in time. This leaves the burden of life pursuit on the doctor, despite the patients opinion which could be much less informed than that of the physician. The emergence of the possibility of medical euthanasia stems from the framework Of palliative care, which is a form Of medical care that assists individuals with terminal illnesses face the acceptance of death, and do so while treating the symptoms of the illness with curing the actual illness.
Euthanasia, in the views of many, is simply a step forward from this approach, one in which would allow someone to bring about their inevitable death without suffering through the inhumane effects of their illness (BBC, 2012). The push for the legality of euthanasia argues mainly that the individual with he illness should have the right to choose, and this is commonly referred to as an option for death that keeps dignity intact (Porter, 2012).
Examples of suicide incidents as a result of suffering from illness are typically presented as tragedies that can be prevented if medical alternatives were given. The idea of this right to choose on the surface is in agreement with my ethical radar. However, legalizing the prescription of medicine that catalysts a humane death for terminally ill creates a off-coined slippery slope (Porter, 2012). Giving doctors the power to prescribe such death would inherently give a rower to physicians that many believe is too great a power to be given (BBC, 2012).
With the option to choose a humane death, the possibility of involuntary euthanasia arises, as anyone would have the opportunity to administer the drugs to someone and stage it as a choice they made on their own (porter, 2012). Also, the ethical situation that is commonly referred is that in which euthanasia is pushed as an economical alternative to treatment; this situation is cited to have already taken place in which an insurance company agreed to pay for the euthanasia but did not agree to pay for the much more expensive monthly treatment (Porter, 2012).
It is because of the complications that arise as a result of legalizing such a practice that I oppose the legalization of medical euthanasia. That is not to say that if administered under a very strict and substantially assembled system of checks and balances that this practice ought not to be considered in the future. The ethical argument of these end of life choices is not only an argument of reason, but in many cases one of spiritual and religious value.
Many believe that euthanasia and discourtesies suicide are acts that play that of god, and that it goes against religious beliefs (BBC, 2012). I do not believe medical issues should be swayed by religious concerns, though I understand our ethics are somewhat influenced by these beliefs. At the same time, I do agree with the argument that is made that such end of life practices could devalue our perception of life, and that allowing such a death could have irreversible effects on the ethical framework of society.
Would supporting death, whether humane or not, not contradict the foundation of nearly all we are governed by? A similar argument is made toward palliative care, that is in some fashion a form Of giving up on life; I disagree with this assessment, as it is not a physical opting out of life, but rather a psychological attempt to ease into what may be inevitable with as little suffering and collateral damage as possible. Overall, the ethical boundaries that surround the issues of death are nearly limitless.
It seems that any effort to support any act that would assist death becomes one of extreme controversy, and possibly one of great contradiction in the field of healthcare. While I support the idea that life or death ought to be ones personal choice, I do not support the opening of Pander’s Box that would occur with the legalization of such medical practices. Live a physician should serene every individual just as a healthy t-body or vitamin, and act in the homeostasis of life with little or no concern for the option of death.
