Ethical_Issues_Facing_Health_Care

Ethical Issues Facing Health Care Paper “Allowed to Die” Kathren Gibson University of Phoenix Instructor: James Dockins HCS/435 August 7, 2010 Ethical Issues Facing Health Care Paper “Allowed to Die” The issue of life versus death is as old as humankind, and certainly as a subject, just as powerful of an issue as it was centuries ago. Throughout history, the struggle for life has been a battle waged against the onset of death. Although a futile one, death is capable of coming when it is most unlikely, and at any age. Whereas some people prepare for death by generating written directives beforehand, many simply do not implement such actions and leave the hearth-retching task of deciding whether to prolong their lives opposed to allowing then to die to practitioners, family members, and love ones. Although popular opinion frequently differs, the issue of prolonging life and euthanasia is as pertinent as individual opinion; eluding to moral values and principles. Although ageless, susceptibility to this type of medical crisis involves long-term illnesses in which individuals experience loss of body function (s); requiring either a decisions for prolonging life through life supporting techniques, or euthanasia. By definition and understanding prolonging life (life supporting measures), and euthanasia are as different as day and night. Prolonging life means the applied un-natural assisted intervention of modern medicine and technological techniques to keep a person alive, whereas although complex, euthanasia has many names and definitions: mercy killing, assisted suicide, and the right to die (Moreno, 1995). In stricter terms, euthanasia refers to omissions or actions that willingly result in the death of an individual who is already gravely ill; inclusive of techniques of active euthanasia such as gunfire to lethal injection, passive euthanasia achieved by failing to treat pneumonia, or by withholding, or withdrawing ventilator support. In essence, whether through passive euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, or active euthanasia the idea is to relieve suffering and provide a good death, which bring up another topic “the quality of life and how it is measured.” This one-question is the focus of enormous medical controversy with respect to the state of quality of life when prolonging life (BBC News, 1999). Whereas all terminally ill medical cases are uniquely different; the embodied individual quality of state at hand is hugely significant. Arguably, one could use the premise that God gave life to live; however, one must ask, to what degree' Whereas life is precious, also is the degree in which it is being lived. This one-question poses enormous conflicting grounds of mixed opinionated thoughts regarding the moral and legal ramification of action. Serious Moral and Legal Complication For example, take the 1975 case of Karen Ann Quinlan; admitted to the hospital in a coma, later declared by doctors to be in a "persistent vegetative state," and placed on a ventilator for five months. Concerned for Karen`s quality of life, the parents partitioned the courts for the right to remove all life sustaining support for their daughter after doctors refused to let her die. Although not mentioned in the Constitution specifically, the New Jersey Superior Court denied the parent`s request, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and ruled that Karen Quinlan's "right to privacy" included her right to be removed from the ventilator. The legal ramifications of the court battle declared Karen had a right to privacy under the Constitution, and granted Karen the right to die; allowing the removal of ventilator (Pro Con, 2009). Bases upon moral principles, doctors upheld an ethical obligation to sustain life as long as possible, and through any necessary means, but at what cost' Whereas the hospital staff continued to follow regular guidelines and procedures to keep Karen alive, without advanced directives, is it safe to say this was what Karen wanted, or given the intensity, was it simply standard hospital practice' In cases such as this, there is a case determinative distinction between the unlawful takings of the life of another; ending of artificial life-support systems as a matter of self-determination (Pro Con, 2009). Hence, as long as there are those not willing to take charge by initiating advance directives in case of body dysfunction, then their obvious fate will reside in the hands of doctors, family, and courts. In conclusion, advance directives eliminate guess work; providing straight-forward and un-questioned directions regarding one`s outcome! Whereas birth and death are inedible, promoting and instilling early training among the younger population with respect to health and advance directives helps alleviate frustration and turmoil. In times of stressful medical uncertainties, this one implementation factor could prove vital to adhering to one`s final wishes (Mark, 2009). Only through advance directive awareness and utilization will controversy surrounding the issue of prolonging life lessen the effect (s) brought upon those left to decide one`s final fate. Reference Page BBC News, (1999). What is euthanasia' Retrieved August 01, 2010 from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php'questionID=000142 Moreno, Jonathan, PhD (1995). Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy over Mercy Killing. Assisted Suicide and the "Right to Die." Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php'questionID=000142 Pro Con. Org, (2009). Legal Precedents: Euthanasia. Retrieved August 07, 2010 from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php'resourceID=000131 Sandell, Mark, (2009). On the Air: The right to Die. Retrieved August 02, 2010 from http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/the-right-to-die/