Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain. Furthermore, euthanasia would become the first step of a slippery slope whereby value of human life will be depreciated and reduced to economical and personal convenience. However, these farfetched consequences cannot surpass the empathetic argument of mercy on the patient whereby quality of life overrides quantity. The most convincing argument that renders the killing of terminally ill morally permissible is the understanding that all humans possess autonomy. John Stuart Mill argues in (On Liberty (1859), ‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which a citizen is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
Physician Assisted Suicide: Legal or Not? Sabrina Rabl PHI103 Erik Hudak November 26, 2012 Physician Assisted Suicide: Legal or Not? Physician assisted suicide is not only just but merciful on the terminally ill patient. While many view this to be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath that all physicians take, it is still within the patient’s rights to decide whether or not to end their life when in pain or actively dying from a terminal illness. To say that in allowing physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope that can lead to legalized murder is just absurd.
The act itself does not solve all the problems of the healthcare system since it does not provide universal healthcare coverage like that of the United Kingdom and Canada but has promise for millions who prior to the implementation of the law had no chance of being insured (Bryant, 2010). At its roll out, the system was so dysfunctional that even the fiercest supporters of the law were looking for the exit door. The affordable care act created a divide that is still being debated till today. Some states are reluctant to implement the law and those who did are foot dragging to complete the roll out. The truth is that no single law can create a panacea for all the problems of the American healthcare system in such a short time (Hofler, 2011).
Secondly, balance in the monitoring of high-risk patients was inadequate. Staff failed to implement additional monitoring for Mr. B. The patient needed extra monitoring due to had an increased dosage due to high tolerance to the prescribed sedatives. Leaving an untrained family member to attend to a patient in respiratory crisis was not only unsafe; it was in violation of established conscious-sedation protocol. Mr. B. was vulnerable when he was left unattended.
• Service users too weak as a result of illness to attend a health facility. • Service users too young to access services without help. There are many individuals who require services have mobility difficulties. This may be because of illnesses, elderly or wheelchair users find it hard to get to services. Service settings must be designed for every individual who finds it hard to get to services.
For some individuals that do not have transportation to and from the clinic; lack health care treatment. More so, in certain areas of the community the hours of the clinic can vary on the staff that is available to operate at these locations. In many parts of the world, traditional values create major barriers to accessing reproductive health information and services. (Pathfinder International, 2007). Another organizational barrier that comes to mind is the problem with not accepting individuals who do not have insurance/uninsured.
Advantages that Marquis believes he has are, his theory explains why we regard the killing as one of the worst crimes; his theory straight-forwardly explains why the killing of children or infants is wrong, “because under normal circumstances they have futures like ours”; also given the limited and painful future some patients look forward to, this theory, unlike other theories that trade on the sanctity of human life, and doesn’t result in euthanasia being immoral. The final two advantages Marquis has are, this theory allows that it may be immoral to kill other entities because it ties the wrongness of killing to the denial of a future like ours and not to our being biologically and genetically human. The final advantage is that an additional benefit of this view is that it, “avoids the invalid inference that since it is wrong to kill persons it is therefore wrong to kill potential persons as
Marquis believes that murder deprives the victim of a future. He believes if a fetus is killed, everything that the fetus may have been a part of, whether it be the world, sciences, or the earth, has been ruined. He ties this back to the abortion debate. By believing that killing a fetus is wrong because his or her future has been deprived, we must ask ourselves whether the fetus will even have a future, which Marquis believes the answer to always be yes. However, if we keep pressing this idea to be true, we end up going to some pretty strange places.
Due to the high nurse- patient ratio, nurses do not have time to do charting, medicate patients on time, and provide quality care. Nurses are the professionals who empathize with the patients on physical and emotional issues. Not spending quality time with the patients may make the patients’ feel ignored and unattended. Patients who are incontinent are to be
The topic of euthanasia conflicts with the foundations of religion and the principles of science, which has caused its legalities to become questionable. With that being said, there are several different types of euthanasia; one of the most supported for pro-euthanasia advocates is physician assisted euthanasia, or most commonly referred to as assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is the act of a physician facilitating a terminally ill patient’s death by providing the necessary means and information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (Dyer). Despite many spiritual people’s beliefs and opinions, it is favorable towards the patient’s best interest, as well as the community. Therefore, physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States due to the benefits it provides for the patient and the community, contrary to religious