Scientifically speaking, organs or portions of organs is not qualified to be called “life”. Hence, it abolishes the argument of “life degradation”. On the contrary, by providing incentives to organ donors, life is being promoted. Once the sale of organs from living donors is permitted the acquisition of organs will transform from prolonged stressful waiting scheme to a safer and life-saving procedure One major problem deals with organ donations, and there is always a recurring question; should the family of the donor be compensated? Each patient unfortunately becomes an insignificant statistic joining the lines of hopeless patients who wait in line on the organ
In this essay we examine the impact of withholding and withdrawal of treatment from a nursing perspective and examine the ethical issues involved. When a cure is absolutely impossible certain life sustaining medical treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation, nutrition and hydration, dialysis, transfusions, and antibiotics may have to be withdrawn or withheld (Derse, 2005). Recent media attention on the case of Terri Schiavo has successfully highlighted the ethical, legal and social issues of withdrawing and withholding treatment. Konishi et al (2002) discuss the ethics of withdrawing artificial food and fluid from terminally ill patients bringing in the dilemma on end of life issues and whether life of patients could be ended intentionally by stopping or withdrawing treatment. Withdrawal of food and fluid from terminally ill patients is a growing ethical issue and concerns patients, families, and nurses as well.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
On the other hand opponents of assisted suicide do not believe this is the only way to secure a good health alternative. Opponents believe that it is important to make a patient feel comfortable and help them improve their quality of life not end life just because it is an option or that they may feel they are a burden to loved ones. Assisted suicide can be performed by a physician or a person who is willing to help a patient end their life. This paper will focus on physician assisted suicide (PAS), this has been a controversial issue in many countries and have many different opinions on the ethics behind assisted suicide. To further examine the data the utilitarian ethics approach will be used.
Ethical Dilemma The major ethical dilemma for the drug Zmapp is that the World Health Organization is debating on whether to let some participants be placed in a control group that receives only standard symptomatic treatment, despite a mortality rate of around 70%. The other participants would be getting the new drug and possible getting better. This is a major ethical dilemma, whether to let a lot of people die because you did not give them the drug, or give everyone the drug and hope that it cures them and not kill them because of side effects. (Hayden 2014) “These trials will be conducted in a context of fear, distrust, a lack of effective care options, the admission of multiple family members to the same center, and sometimes violence against health-care workers,” says Peter Horby, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, UK. “Scientific arguments cannot tell us what will work in these conditions.” It is a hard decision to make and the United States thinks that every patient should receive the experimental treatment no matter if it’s not any better than standardized treatment.
13 4. Further information 17 4 1. About this booklet You have been given this booklet because doctors or health and social care professionals are thinking about changing the way a family member, friend or someone you provide care for is looked after in hospital or in a care home. They are thinking about introducing a care plan in which your family member or friend will be deprived of their liberty in a hospital or care home. The doctors or other professionals are thinking about this because they believe that: • this care plan would be in the best interests of your family member or friend • your friend or family member does not have the capacity to consent to the care plan themselves, and • it would not be possible to deliver the care they recommend without depriving your family member or friend of their liberty.
Furthermore, although the patients have the autonomy to take their medical decisions, it is the physician’s duty to limit treatments that are considered medically futile for the patient. One of the most challenges faced by medical professionals is the demand made by patients or their family members for treatments that are considered futile in accordance to the professional standards of care. This paper discusses the ethical challenges associated with medical futility. First, the paper dicusses the conceptual and ethical analysis of medical futility provided by Mark Wicclair. This analysis presents three different aspects of futility and the difficulties associated with them.
Organ Sales Will Save Lives by Joanna Mackay In the essay Organ sales will save lives by Joana Mackay, Mackay states how the legalization of selling human organs will help to save thousands of lives. Mackay is based on the fact that this will benefit not only the person receiving the organ, but also would help receive money for it. People are waiting for an organ transplant that could save their lives, but due to “laws” that leave out the option of donating organs, these people are usually condemned to death as they wait on a list of donors or a death person to extract the organ they need. Governments “Should not ban the sale of human organs, they should regulate it”(92). She explains how in the third world countries they are illegal organs, trades and people are willing to sell an organ for proximity of $1000.
The Patient Bill of Rights has a significant impact and is essential for the people who are in the health care organization for the purpose of getting treatment properly and easily. In this scenario, June is suffering from anorexia and the doctors feel she may need to be placed on a feeding tube to save her life. June agreed to the procedure but became combative, disoriented and refused to have the tube place the evening before the procedure was to take place. The patient bill of rights applies, as the patient has a right to know what treatment options are available to one and what the possible outcomes may be. The patient has a right to decide one’s medical care.
Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making by Timothy Quill I believe that the main purpose of Quill’s essay is to point out his “belief that active, informed patient choice of treatment or non-treatment and of the patient’s right to die with dignity with much control and dignity as possible. Yet there was something about her giving up a.25 chance of a long-term survival in state in favor of almost certain death that disturbed me” (Quill 692). “Even though he believed in a patient’s choice of treatment, he was hoping that Diane would change her mind start chemotherapy” (692). Quill states “that as a former director of a hospice program, I know how to use pain medicine to keep patients comfortable and lessen suffering. I explained the philosophy of comfort, which I strongly believe in Quill (692).