No one has the right to decide who should live and who should die. This decision is left up to God (or whomever you worship) or fate. By legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide and making it acceptable, this opens the door for abuse of power, breaches the Hippocratic Oath “I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and I will "be of benefit, or at least do no harm.” However, compared to the answers given by Physicians in the 1996 survey, it seems that the Hippocratic Oath may already have some grey areas. Physicians are also human, which means they can make mistakes. (Braddock C, 1999) The diagnosing of diseases and their prognosis may be science, but it is not absolute.
Since this topic is illegal physicians and patients do not speak of it. It becomes a topic that is hidden under a rock. Physicians know they can help the dying and the dying know that the physicians can help them, but because of legal issues no one dares to speak of the aid in dying. Legalization of PAD would promote open discussion and may promote better end-of-life care as patients and physicians could more directly address concern and options. Patients and doctors should have the right to speak about the topic of physician aid in dying.
The Institute of Medicine functions under a congressional organization through the National Academy of Sciences. They provide advice and have policy input on many kinds of health related issues. This article provides a resource for explaining the dilemma in healthcare which shows the desperate need for quality control in this field. Parikh, N. (2007, March). Medicine and media: A symbolic relationship?
Patrick Hopkins, PhD. Euthanasia.ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=552 Walker RM. (2001 Jan-Feb;8(1):25-31) Physician-assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope. Cancer Control Review.
Many people are against medically assisted suicide because they feel it goes against a doctor’s code of ethics but not allowing a patient to have options is unfair to them; let them decide what they want for themselves. Why would someone want to continue living if they know that they only had a few months to live? Someone has a terminal illness like cancer; the patient is restricted from doing what they love most in their daily lives, the chemotherapy treatments are not working for
He is not only informally treating and collecting specimen from his daughter, but he is also not documenting any of the treatments that he is doing. This is a major problem and could be subject to intervention by the law. Joe is risking his medical credibility by doing this for his daughter. He is also performing these tests without the direct supervision of the supervising physician, which goes against the code of conduct (2013). If a physician assistant violates laws that vary from state to state, the physician assistant could be subject to license suspension or being
Modifiers help with duplicate billing and unbundling of codes. The coder must understand professional courtesy and discounts to uninsured or low income patients. Professional courtesy is when the doctor may not charge for services to other doctors or their family. This is not allowed because health insurance deductibles and co-pays must be paid. When giving discounts the system used to determine who gets the discount should be documented in the compliance plan.
If this person does not follow the standard of care and someone suffers harm or loss as a result then the individual has been negligent. If someone has a duty of care towards another person and does not exercise an appropriate standard of care in all circumstances, then the duty of care has been breached. If someone can prove that you did something you should not have done, or failed to do something that you should have done, which resulted in an injury, then you have breached your duty of care and could be sued. Duty of care is hard to define because there is no legal definition, although it is a legal obligation. It is an idea based on the legal concept of negligence.
Part 1 ( Problem Question) 1. Challenging the decision Introduction The NHS has the policy that such alternative treatment, as requested by Walter, will not be funded for a patient with cerebral palsy, according to the doctor and there are very limited way to challenge this decision as the doctor can refuse providing a treatment and the courts will not force. a) Statutory duty Action can be taken against the NHS on the grounds that they have breached their duty to provide ‘a comprehensive health service’ under the 2006 Act. This however, may fail as the NHS has the authority to decide on treatments and a policy so as it reasonably thinks that it is necessary taking into account the available resources. The NHS can say that they find it not necessary, taking into consideration of the available resources, as it will not give much benefit to a patient with cerebral palsy.
31).Conversely, no-one can be appropriately assigned the right to say life-saving means should be abandoned because someone else determines that a patient is an excessive burden or that it costs too much to treat a condition. Humans deserve the right to life, even if that life is not what others may judge as a good one. The government and doctors’ cannot decide who lives and dies by passing a law that relieves patients of their rights. Mankind’s right to die has been extensively discussed; however, passing laws in support of physician-assisted suicide takes that option from the patient and puts into the hands of those who may not have the patient’s best interest in mind. This topic is bigger than allowing a loved one to go softly from life, it involves too much room for the abuse of the nation’s elderly, mentally ill, and poor, which should not, and cannot be allowed to