From the con side of the topic Physicians legally and morally should not assist in suicide of terminally ill patients. This simple fact could boil down to the simple fact that suicide is suicide and it is morally wrong. A lot of countries around the world feel as though this is not moral and this why it is illegal in a vast majority of countries around the world. You could argue that this goes against a doctor’s job. The medical person who is administering the drug is not doing their job as a doctor, which is to help people not kill
The plaintiff appealed. The issue on appeal was whether the defendant was negligent and breached the standard of care. The plaintiff alleged that leaving a sponge inside of her body following surgery was a breach of the standard of care, and failed to properly monitor and perform a proper operation, which resulted it to heal wrong. Plaintiff also held that the doctor should also be held liable because the nurse was under his control and supervision. The defendant alleged that the circulating nurse was responsible for the sponge count, and was not liable because the nurse did not count the sponges under his direct
103). Criminal negligence manslaughter is considered when a person is reckless and negligence and causes the death of another human being. Unlawful act manslaughter is considered when a person is breaking a law and ends up taking a life. “Homicide by vehicle” (Davenport, 2009, p. 104) is considered unlawful act manslaughter because they are usually violating a traffic regulation when a death occurs. Two other homicides that are not heard about all the time are “euthanasia” and “infanticide” (Davenport, 2009, p. 106).
The American Medical Association has generally argued against physician assisted suicide on the grounds that it undermines the integrity of the profession (Braddock & Tonelli 1998). Although patients can commit suicide without the aid of their physician it is still against the law and it can affect family members after they are gone. Opinions differ on the ethical consequences of trying to make physician assisted suicide the responsibility of doctors, but prior consideration of such ethically relevant consequences the question arises of whether the provision assisted suicide can logically be part of the doctor’s role (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010). At the same time the state needs to monitor physician to see that they do not break the law and take it into their hands to participate in physician assisted suicide. A physician job description is to aim at the provision of treatments with health benefits in the patient’s best interest, and to avoid adverse outcomes (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010).
Week 6 Check Point: Mind Over Matter By Mary Setzer The difference between mental illness and insanity is that insanity is a more severe form of mental illness where a person fails to realize what is real and what is fantasy. The M'Naghten rule can't be used to defend the actions of someone who drinks alcohol because drinking is a voluntary act. Had the person not had alcohol, they would not have committed a crime. If someone receives a rational and guilty verdict after committing a crime, it means that the person convicted knew what they were doing and aware of the consequences. A guilty but insane verdict means that the person convicted was insane to have killed someone (for example) but realizes what they have done is wrong.
Their condition might take an unexpected turn; or they might change their mind about a treatment; or a treatment might have disappointing effects. In these and similar cases, withdrawal of a treatment after trying it will be acceptable legally and ethically. If the team believes that a treatment could do some good, it would be unacceptable not to commence it on the basis of a false fear that it would not be possible to stop the treatment. Special legal procedures are associated with decisions relating to patients in a persistent vegetative state (BMA 2007). Intention Charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter require an intention to kill or harm on the part of the accused.
Even though it is already legal, at first when it became legal it spread around quickly. The fear was that doctors would be basically killing patients who maybe have psychological problems and have nothing to do with being physically ill. There was a statement made where it said: “Dutch doctors have gone from killing the severely ill, to the disabled and even the depressed who aren’t physically sick.” In addition too, this case about assisted suicide is iffy because under age patients like 18 year old may ask for it if they do have a problem and are in contact with a physician. The problem with that is maybe they aren’t sure of what they want and are taking the toll on their lives. The way of looking at this is giving medical care and love and compassion to these people.
When you had a choice between a slow, prolonging and a quick, instantaneous death, which option would you choose? When only presented with these two options, one would probably pick the latter choice - after all humans are not biologically designed to withstand prolonged pain and suffering. Hence it is why assisted death has been one of the most important yet controversial topics hotly debated over the centuries. The term should not be confused with Euthanasia (also known as “mercy killing”), which is a practice of ending a life painlessly, assisted by a third party. For example, if a physician (a third person) assists the death of a patient by giving a fatal dose of medication or injection etc, then euthanasia has taken place.
We are going to begin this paper by looking at the opposing side of this topic. Many people on the side against assisted suicides believe that we as a society have a moral duty to protect those that are innocent. Others believe that any laws that sanction assisted suicides on the basis of mercy and compassion would eventually lead to someone making the decision of who lives or who dies, based on how they feel about the worth of another’s life. The biggest argument against the legalizing of assisted suicides in this country is the fact that it is simply against the law. The Supreme Court has not ruled that a person has a fundamental right to die, there for taking of someone’s life is plain and simply
Why would anyone willingly want to do that to another person? Let alone a government doing it to one of its citizens. Don’t get me wrong now just because I don’t support the death penalty doesn’t mean I lack sympathy for the murder victims or their families. Believe me I do I know what it is like to lose a loved one and I don’t want anyone to have to go through that in life. But I believe murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life.