Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(46)
-
▼
July
(13)
- Health Care Systems (PP12)
- Alternative Medicine (PP11)
- Animal Rights Extremism (PP10)
- Should Healthcare Be Rationed? (PP9)
- Organ Transplants - Child Donors (PP8)
- Creating a Life to Save a Life (PP7)
- Right to Refuse Treatment (PP6)
- Stem Cell Research (PP5)
- Conscience Laws and the Rights of Individuals (PP4)
- Roe v Wade (PP3)
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Beginning of Li...
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Care for the Dy...
- Welcome Summer PHI213 Students!
-
▼
July
(13)
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
11 comments:
In regards to part five of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, I agree with most of their requirements and standards of care for dying patients. The directives clearly state that all patients should be given medications to control pain while dying. Unfortunately, if pain medication does not work, the patient is not given the choice for physician assisted suicide; the assistance of medications to induce death. They are to be counseled and helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering. In my opinion, this is allowing a patient to suffer until death there by taking away a persons right to die comfortably. Aside from my belief that assisted suicide is a right that all persons should have, ultimately a person should not have to suffer during the dying process regardless of any church beliefs. In this country there is the separation of church and state. Laws are should never be made based on a religious belief.
Under these directives, patients are given the choice to forgo any extraordinary procedures or care when it will place an undue burden on the patient or family. The decision by a competent patient to withdrawal life-sustaining equipment is to be respected by the doctors and hospital. However, who determines what constitutes extraordinary procedures and what if the patient can not give consent due to being in a coma or persistent vegetative state. Does this mean the family can not make the choice and the patient has to remain tied to machines or given medical treatment the family does not want? Another stipulation to these rules that I do not agree with is the request can not be contrary to the Catholic moral teachings. Again, neither a person nor their family should have their rights taken away due to a religious belief especially if that said belief or religion is not that of the patient or the family. I am not Catholic nor is my family. If a Catholic hospital is the closest to me and I am transported to said hospital, my choices about my life are to be based on beliefs I do not agree with. This would violate my right to religious freedom.
Lastly, organ donation is permitted under the directives which I am in total agreement with. Child organ and tissue donation is also allowed which surprised me. Yet, human tissue obtained from an abortion can not be used. To me if you allow the practice for child organ and tissue donation you should allow it from a fetus. I don’t understand the distinction between the two. If the fetus is considered a child in the Catholic church’s opinion and child organ and tissue donation is allowable, it is contradictory to not apply the same rules to a fetus.
Part five of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services is a little tricky for me to determine if it is in fact ethical or not without knowing an exact case study. There are too may variables that come into play with this one that can change the factors of what I feel would be ethical. First of all I believe that there needs to be a distinct separation between church and state, that being said I’m sure most of Catholic Health Care Service establishments are privately owned so they are free to practice what they feel fit according to their religious belief. I’m not certain but I would think that community or state hospitals don’t follow these directives, we are free to take our business to these establishments if we do so desire.
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In general I think physician assisted suicide is not ethical and it violates the Hippocratic oath. I don’t think its ethical for someone to take someone else’s life; I know I wouldn’t want that load upon me for the rest of my life if I were a physician. I think this demeans the value of human life and could potentially open up the system for potential abuse. It’s far fetched but I wouldn’t put it past some insurance companies applying pressure on practitioners to avoid heroic measures to save someone just to save a few bucks. On the other hand I do see some pluses with physician-assisted suicide. It’s a way to end life peacefully if the patient is suffering. Organs can be saved and passed on to others, in turn saving someone else’s life. Practitioners can be freed up to work on patients that are treatable and have a high probability of recovery.
I do agree that patients should be kept free of pain as much as possible and as comfortable as possible. This is ethical treatment and should be practiced everywhere. I’m not too excited about the religious aspect of this directive, but again these directives are for private institutions, for the most part, they can do as they please. Essentially, I agree with directive 61 minus the religious aspects. It doesn’t violate the Hippocratic oath and it is ethical.
Although I agree with the church in that “life pro-longing procedures are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome,” I completely disagree that suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options. Dying with dignity is the only moral action. A person should have complete autonomy when dealing with his/her inevitable fate. It is our civil right to be able to choose when to die and how long we want to live, regardless of a terminal illness or not. I do however, feel that those with families, who are wishing to end their lives’ should at least make adequate preparations for their families and loved ones after life has departed.
When it comes to the terminally ill, I disagree with the church when it describes “an instance on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it.” If the patient is alert and knowing of the consequences, the choice of treatment is up to them, including choosing no treatment. It is morally wrong to force treatment upon anyone, especially when the patient is dead-set against it. Why put someone through agonizing and expensive treatments when they are not wanted. According to Mill, that is definitely not the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest good would be to let that patient go and continue care on someone who wants it. Why waste professional money, time, and technology on someone who doesn’t care? One can’t help those who don’t want to help themselves first.
I also disagree with the church when it comes to the use of tissue and organ donations, especially if the person has been in PVS for over 4 years. God wouldn’t want us to waste lives, so why not donate? If the patient is in PVS, it is invaluable for life that organs being used for transplantation are “alive” and in proper working order. If there is absolutely no hope for the patient, why let the organs die first? Would you wait for a patient to die of cardiac arrest before administering CPR?
In my opinion after reading all the directives from the Catholic Church on the issues in Care for the Dying, I believe for the most part they follow a common sense approach. It looks like they take the stand to not interfere with death because of it being a natural process. I believe they are ethical for this reason. They believe that a dying patient should be cared for with palliative care. I can see their reasoning on doctor assisted suicide since one of the commandments is Thou shalt not kill, but I still think you should have the right to choose if that is the way you want to go. Being Catholic and believing in doctor assisted suicide, I am really stuck between a rock and a hard place. I hope that I never have to make the choice. #64 directive in my opinion should be followed in every facility; the doctor who determines death should not be on the organ transplant team. #66 directive states that Catholic health care institutions should not make use of the human tissue from a direct abortion for the benefit of research and therapeutic purposes. Since Catholics do not believe in abortions, these abortions are done obviously to save the mom I think this is unethical because the one fetus can save many more with research.
I think when I was reading the directives I was going along with most. There were a few that were of concern. I agree that death should be natural but not everyone is in the same boat on that. I think that the option should be available to terminate but with safe guards that its not abused. I think that in cases that pain can't be eliminated in a terminally person they should have some options to help deal with the pain such as the assisted death. Some Doctors may have issues with helping someone kill them self's. If I was in that position I would not want to have part of the death.
Now the next part I have an issue with is the last directive of not able to use the tissue of an aborted life. I think that with permission that is should be able to be used for research. The aborted baby has tissue that is also able to be used. There is no reason that it could not be used that I see unless there is some medical reason that the tissue is compromised.
I do not agree or believe if a patient is experiencing suffering to the point where that pain can not be alleviated should be forced to deal with the pain until they go naturally if the are going to die anyway. It’s that person life and it’s their choice, and if they are ready to go they should be able to decide. I feel if a person has decided to go they must have that relationship with God or is in comfortable place, they should not be forced to suffer.
The reason I feel the way is because I have witnessed someone suffering from terminal cancer and the pain got to the point where it could no longer be endured. That person had enough and was ready to move on. If that person didn’t have the option to go would have be painful to the family and the patient as well. No one wants to suffer.
I also do not feel that the doctor should be the one to decide especially if they know the come is negative. I think it should be the patients and the family. The doctor should give their professional opinion only.
Also believe that donating organs should be allowed if the person or the patient agrees to it, especially if it could save one ones life.
Regarding directives 63, 65, and 66 concerning organ and tissue donation. The Catholic Church states in directives 63 and 65 that donation is allowed following the determination of legitimate death of adults and infants for the purpose of the therapeutic research. However, donation is prohibited when those tissues are derived from aborted fetuses. Personally I would believe that should a fetus be aborted to prevent harm or death to the mother or for any medical reason regarding the heath of both the mother and the fetus the tissue donation should be allowed. When is abortion of the fetus concerns rare genetic disorders those tissues could be overwhelmingly valuable in the research to discover cause and/or treatment of such diseases or to harvest stem cells for the purpose of research of a wide variety of disorders. In the event of abortion for the mere purpose of an unwanted pregnancy tissue donation should still be allowed for the greater purpose of therapeutic treatments of diseases, the loss of one life can potentially further the quality of life of another.
I strongly disagree with the Catholic church on how they view suicides!!!!! God is a forgiving being, and it never states that suicide is unforgivable in the Bible.
Assisted suicide though is not so black and white. If someone is suffering for true reasons I can’t condone it, if it is for the sole purpose of just ending life that shouldn’t be allowed.
I can see how the church doesn’t want to support it though because it can be viewed as murder in their eyes. But I believe they need to try to look at it in other forms again before taking a stand. They are here to help Gods children but they may be missing many lives they could help by the stand they are taking.
On the topic of not helping the suffering by taking their right to die comfortably is mean. I don’t think God would want his children to die uncomfortably, he would like them to enter eternal life peacefully. I believe that if the medical staff is able to help you die with dignity and not suffering, they should help. It should be part of how they care for you.
With the issue of care for the dying it can go both ways. The churches stance should be respected this is their right to have whatever guidelines that adhere to their morals no matter what the popular opinion is. It is my view the less that the sanctity of life should be protected to the end. Ones pain alongside with spiritual well being should be treated until the end.
It should not be abandoned at the end when there is medicine to alleviate pain and psychologist that can help with a patient’s mental health life is precious. One will to live should be a main priority the guidelines outlined by the church establish a framework for professionals working at the institutions to abide by The overall idea is life is important even though one has felt they have exhausted all options death by one lack of will should not be one
I do not agree or believe if a patient is experiencing suffering to the point where that pain cannot be alleviated, should be forced to deal with the pain until they go naturally if the are going to die anyway. It’s that person life and it’s their choice, and if they are ready to go they should be able to decide. I feel if a person has decided to go they must have that relationship with God or is in comfortable place, they should not be forced to suffer.
The reason I feel the way is because I have witnessed someone suffering from terminal cancer and the pain got to the point where it could no longer be endured. That person had enough and was ready to move on. If that person didn’t have the option to go would have be painful to the family and the patient as well. No one wants to suffer.
I also do not feel that the doctor should be the one to decide especially if they know the come is negative. I think it should be the patients and the family. The doctor should give their professional opinion only.
Also believe that donating organs should be allowed if the person or the patient aggress to it, especially if it could save one ones life.
In regards to Part Five of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. I believe in assisted suicide in most circumstances concerning terminal illness. When a person is suffering with a terminal illness such as cancer and living with pain day by day, and their families are watching their bodies slowing deteriorate over days, weeks and month. This situation is not up to the doctors or anyone, to tell them how long they need to live, they should only be their to give them medical advise. In this case I would rather live quality vs. quanity of life and I would hope that my family would rather remember me as a strong, vibrant person, then the ill beaten body that is lying in a bed awaiting death. When any person is spiritually ready to leave this earth and move into a world of no pain and suffering, this is their time to make that decision.
I do also believe in cases such as hospice. A person should be able to die “comfortably and with dignity.” My father-in-law had come to a time in his life that his body was just shutting down after several years of congestive heart failure. Hospice was able to come into our home and be with him and our family and provide the spiritual support and direction to help us through this troubled time. They were able to keep him comfortable with pain medication. He did not suffer. His time of death was very peaceful and not painful.
Post a Comment