Ewart was an American who had gotten a disease that causes his organs to shrink for a long time. He chose to die by euthanasia, to end his pain of his own accord finally. He said that Motoneuron disease made him tired and he had no will to live. If he was in so much pain by the disease, he would still want to live, but there were too much pain. From Steven Ertelt’s article, we knew that Ewart said, if he chose to live, he would suffer illness, but it did not mean he could cure the disease and have a new life (2008).
• Active euthanasia – A doctor or a nurse gives an ill patient medicine that will kill them. Not all doctors agree with this as they feel that participating in the ending of someone’s life is not part of their job role. • Passive euthanasia – A patient does not get the medicine or treatment that they need in order to stay alive. It can also be classified as: • Voluntary euthanasia – where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do this. • Non – voluntary euthanasia – where a person is unable to give their consent for example if they are severely brain damaged, and another person makes the decision on their behalf.
Abby Schleicher N365 Psychosocial and Ethical Aspects of Care Ethical Case Study 1. The ethical dilemma in this case is that the family of JD will not permit to removing his organs, even though he had the little heart on his licenses that states he is an organ donor. 2. The facts are that JD was a 25 year old male who sustained massive head trauma had the little heart on his licenses that stated he was an organ donor, however, he did not sign up for the state donor registry. His parents had not talked with him before the accident if he wanted to donate his organs so they were not sure what their son wanted to do with his organs.
However, there are some patients who give up and opt to end their life by way of active euthanasia. Is active euthanasia an act of simply letting a patient die in peace and with dignity? Or is it unethical and murder? According to Caplan, Arthur and Snyder, Lois (2002) the United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is wrong, and this paper will explain why the practice should never be a medical option.
saving a life). Some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a committed relationship. Many who make such claims often ignore the changing views of their communities who in this generation do not condemn such acts as times have changed and society has become much more acceptant of homosexuality and also of certain sub cultures that may not have been able to run without discrimination or restriction from government or councils. even absolutists may change opinion over a long period of time e.g. today almost no religious group endorses slavery, whereas in the past many communities held it to be perfectly ethical.
When a Jehovah Witness receives a blood transfusion they must denounce themselves from the group, consequently causing segregation from his or her congregation, families, and friends. There are members who have chosen to receive blood transfusions, but were able to leave the group on his or her own terms. Ethics Principles There a many conflicts in the health care setting, especially when a patient refuses treatment that a medical professional believes can help save their patients life. The basic ethical principle revolve around a patient’s autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice replaces the ethical
The medical community have conflicting views over euthanasia in Whose Life Is It Anyway, by Brian Clark. Dr Emerson and Dr Scott are the main doctors caring for Ken Harrison, a quadriplegic, who wishes to end his life because of his handicapped state. Both doctors are aware of the consequence; however they approach the situation in opposing ways. Dr Emerson is largely against his death, portrayed as being arrogant and more knowledgeable about this situation. He supports this by claiming Ken is incapable of giving valid consent to such a decision because of the enormity of the accident.
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
The risks of inaccurate judgment can change the live of a human within just a few seconds. Taking away another person’s life for committing a crime is like taken an easy way out. The U.S. government should stop using the death penalty as a way of punishment because it is unfair, unethical and crucial. The founding fathers of the The United States of America wanted a government that would show the tyrants or absolute monarchs of Europe that it was possible to coexist and live free within fair justice. Even though they excluded any religion to be part of the government regulations, they used Christianity to influence them and build a strong foundation for the new type of government.
“Critics of physician assisted suicide believe that doctors like Jack Kevorkian are doing nothing less than playing God“ (Gay 47.) But as Karl Barth said, “It is for God and God alone to make an end of human life” (Lee 17.) Physicians were never meant to take the lives of others. In fact, the job of a physician is very clear, and killing their patients is not in the description. “Many physicians say they would be clouding their roles as healers if they helped patients to die” (Buchanan 36.)