Ethics †End of Life Choice Essay

Being a member of the infirmary Ethics mission, it is my responsibility to make policy recommendations on end-of-life issues. Due to my reasonableness and reputation as a out-of-doors thinker, my ideas on this matter extract a lot of weight with the other members of the committee. Within this paper I leave alone make a strong and win over case for my agency and recommendations on this topic. This paper give address the following question What, if whatsoeverthing, should be done to help people who are dying?First I essential start off with the obvious question Is the enduring an openhanded of 18 years or older who is perchly menacing and of clear and sound mind to authorize aid demolition intervention? If the decide is yes, then we should follow the wishes of the uncomplaining role role. Ultimately, it is their body their life and they should have the right to choose. That organism said, I do believe that guidelines should be established and followed in dedicate to assure that the welfare of the enduring is the only priority.Such guidelines should be do that reflect the three states that currently have laws in place for back up death, which are, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. The law should include but non limited to, a subject adult who has been diagnosed, by a physician, with a terminal illness that will kill the patient within six months whitethorn pass along in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medicinal drug for the purpose of ending the patients life. Exercise of the option chthonic this law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the pick up.Any physician, apothecary or health get by provider who has moral objections may refuse to participate. The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, at to the lowest degree one of whom is non related to the patient, is not entitled to any particle of the patients estate, is not the patients physician, and is not occupied by a health care f acility caring for the patient. aft(prenominal) the request is made, another physician must examine the patients checkup records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment.If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least thirty days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patients magnate to make an informed last, or feel the patients request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation. The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statutes restrictions.Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law should also specify a patients decision to end his or her life shall not hav e an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy. These physician assisted suicide guidelines are within the Death with self-respect Act. The Death with Dignity Act is the philosophical concept that a terminally ill patient should be allowed to die naturally and comfortably, rather than experience a comatose, vegetive life prolonged by mechanical support systems.Currently in that respect are two ways of assisted suicide, one is when the patient is presumptuousness a prescription medication of a fatal dose that will cause them the loose consciousness and die shortly aft(prenominal). The other, which is not judicial in the United States, is known as Active Euthanasia which is a type of mercy killing in which a person who is undergoing intense suffering, and who has no practical hope of recovery is nonplusd to death. It is also known as mercy killing.Generally, a physician performs active euthanasia and carries out the final-death do act. Active euth anasia is performed entirely voluntarily, without any reservation, external persuasion, or duress, and after prolonged and thorough deliberation. A patient undertaking active euthanasia gives full consent to the medical procedure and chooses direct injection, to be administered by a competent medical professional, in order to end with consequence any intolerable and hopelessly incurable suffering.My second question Is the patient an adult of 18 years or older who is suffering? In rare cases around patients who are very ill do not respond to pain medications or may be suffering in other ways that make comfort impossible. In these circumstances there is a last resort therapy that can be used terminal sedation. With terminal sedation, a patient will be given medications that induce sleep or torpor until such time as death occurs as a result of the underlying illness or disease.The invention with terminal sedation must be to relieve suffering only, not to cause death. These measures are often accompanied by the withholding of simulated life supports like intravenous feeding and mushy respiration. * * Also, the physician may use medications that cause a double affect. This has been defined in medical journals as the administration of opioids or sedative drugs with the expressed purpose of relieving pain and suffering in a dying patient.The unintended consequence may be that these medications might cause either respiratory depression or in extreme sedation, might cause to hasten a patients death. What does this mean? In the simplest terms it means that the medication necessary to abate suffering cannot be given without the probable result of hastening death. musical composition this may sound vague and quasi-discomforting, it is a legal, medically accepted practice, as long as the intention is only to relieve suffering and not cause death.The death is attributed to the disease or complications of the disease, combined in some circumstances with the withdraw al of life-sustaining treatments such as intravenous liquids, nutrition, and artificial respiration. While the patient need not be unconscious during this process, unconsciousness is often the result. * * The last question I ask is in cases when a minor, a person under the age of 18, is either terminally ill or suffering, who has the right to make the final decisions, the parents/legal guardians, the state, or the patient?I believe that all three need to have a united decision. If one or more of the three votes differ, then uncomplete intervention stated above may be used. These policy recommendations I have stated within this paper regarding end-of-life issues have been explained thoroughly and in detail. I have successfully made a strong and convincing case for my position and recommendations on this topic. I hope that the members of this Ethics Committee agree with my findings and support my recommendations and that my reputation as a clear and fiducial thinking member is evide nt.