Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(17)
-
▼
July
(14)
- Treatment of the Mentally Ill (PP13)
- Health Care Rationing (PP12)
- Health Care Reform (PP11)
- Alternative Medicine (PP10)
- Human Subjects Research (PP9)
- Animal Rights (PP8)
- Animal Rights Extremism (PP7)
- Forced Sterilization (PP6)
- Right to Refuse Treatment (PP5)
- Creating a Life to Save a Life (PP4)
- Roe v Wade (PP3)
- Care for the Beginning of Life (PP2)
- Care for the Dying (PP1)
- Welcome to PHI213
-
▼
July
(14)
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
25 comments:
Andrea Gracia
PP1- July 09, 2010
I believe directive 60 is ethical, I think it is ethical in the way that the patient should be alleviated of all pain and suffering with remedies until the time of their natural death. But I also think euthanasia and assisted suicide is sometimes right, it depends on the circumstances. I feel assisted suicide is okay when the patient is in severe pain and suffering and if there is nothing more that can be done to help, then the actual act would be done by themselves because of their own choice. Euthanasia should be considered when the illness is terminal within a couple of days or if the patient has been in a state of vegetation for a long period of time, like years. But I don’t agree with using euthanasia if there is a possibility that the patient will get better in a while or might have a chance to live somewhat normally.
Directive 63 is ethical, because if the person is dead and the organs and tissues are just going to waste then why not give someone else a chance to life by donating. I am all for organ and tissue donations after death and I think all families and patients should have that information provided and be educated on the huge help they are giving to others who are ill and need a transplant or donation. Thankfully I have never been in a situation where a family or friend needed an organ transplant but I have been on the other end where my mother made the greatest unselfish decision to help someone else. I am so extremely proud of my mom; because of her a very young little boy only 8 years old is alive. When the little boy was six he was dying more and more everyday because there was no match for the bone marrow he needed, at that time his family was told he only had two months to live. A few days after my mom went to register to donate bone marrow she got a call saying there was someone that needed her and without a doubt she said yes, I’ll do it. My family and I were scared for her health but at the same time all I could think about was my mom being a hero to someone that needed her. A year later we found out the person who received her bone marrow was one six years old, a little boy from New York, and the best news was that he survived! I was so touched to know he survived and especially because he was so young and innocent, he deserved another chance at life. When he and his family were allowed to contact us they did, it just melted my heart to hear his little voice thanking my mom, it’s like I have another little brother with my mom’s blood. In my eyes, my mom is a hero, and thankfully I still have her in my life.
Directive 65 is ethical because infants are precious gifts no matter where they come from, but unfortunately some face death very soon. I totally agree that their little organs and tissues should be donated with the consent of the parents or guardians. The donation of their organs gives another innocent infant a chance to grow and live. If I were put in that situation, which I hope that I never will be, I would donate my infants’ organs and tissues. I would be so proud and at peace knowing that in a way my baby is alive in another lucky baby, because we gave him or her another chance to survive their illness. In my part I think it is the most unselfish thing you can do to save someone else.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have comprised twelve ethical and religious directives (#’s 55-66) for catholic health care services in regards to death and dying. Of these, I find that directive #61 which states, “Patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity, and in the place where they wish to die. Since a person has the right to prepare for his or her death while fully conscious, he or she should not be deprived of consciousness without a compelling reason. Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy may indirectly shorten the person's life so long as the intent is not to hasten death. Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.”, to be extremely ethical. When someone is in the end stage of a terminal illness, if they (or someone they have appointed medical power of attorney) wish to have medications capable of suppressing or alleviating their pain, there should be absolutely no reason to prohibit the use of this medication. For example, a dying patient in end stage cancer is administered massive doses of morphine for pain management and comfort. Although it may compromise the patient’s already diminishing respirations and inadvertently hasten death, I think it is only compassionate and ethical to make their final living moments as peaceful and pain free as possible. I think it would be unethical to let someone die painfully if there are means available to ease that pain.
I also find directive #64, which states, “Such organs should not be removed until it has been medically determined that the patient has died. In order to prevent any conflict of interest, the physician who determines death should not be a member of the transplant team.” to be ethical in its entirety. First, I think it would be completely unethical to remove organs that are to be transplanted from the person before he or she is pronounced dead because it would forgo and completely dismiss the dying patient’s dignity as a human being. Second, I do agree that it would be a conflict of interest if the physician who determines the death is a member of the transplant team because that physician could be prone to bias and perhaps “rushed” to remove those organs so that the recipient could receive them sooner, especially if the recipient’s life depended on it. I think it is ethically important to maintain a patient’s comfort, well-being, and dignity when related to the end stages of their life and death. I find that these two directives specifically do that for the patient.
The first directive I will address from The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Directives on death and dying is #58: “There should be a presumption in favor
of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require
medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.” I completely agree with this directive, and find it to be ethically sound and responsible. I believe that it is ethical to always provide adequate nutrition/hydration to patients regardless of their financial circumstances (in the U.S.A. and countries where provision of such is easily possible.) Regarding countries where it is not monetarily possible to provide as such, I believe there is a moral
obligation of the health care providers to do so to the best of their abilities. I would not
find it ethical for one patient to receive these necessities in favor of another for any reason. With regard to the latter part of the directive, I agree that even where it is necessary to “force feed”, patients have a right to be properly fed and hydrated.
Concerning the benefit outweighing the burdens to the patient, I believe that an ethical panel/committee, not one physician, be consulted and responsible for this determination. I think the committee should be comprised of professionals with experience in dealing with death and dying, and not limited to physicians necessarily. Also, if there is a preceding wish/desire of the patient regarding nutrition/hydration and specific to the circumstances, then it should also be considered. However, it is my belief that preservation of life is premium. I am an optimist in this sense, in that there could always be a “cure” or new technology about to be discovered which would reverse or significantly increase the
patient’s health/well-being.
The directive #66: “Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue
obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes”, is one which I
disagree with. While it is not the law of the land at the moment, and therefore probably is not the popular belief, I believe that not using the tissue(s) is a waste. The Catholic Church here believes that to do so would be a desecration of life. However, my feeling is quite the opposite. I feel that by allowing the use of what can collectively be called
“embryonic stem cells”, we could greatly further research and treatment(s). We could possibly find ways to grow and replace organs/tissue(s) in people which otherwise will die, and we would prolong and save lives by doing so. I do not feel that this is a violation or desecration of human life, but the opposite or the most benevolent possibility with the
unborn. Under the current circumstances the aborted embryos are disposed of and of no benefit. I see the possibility of medical benefit if use of these tissue(s) was allowed. I also feel that since this could be of great benefit to society, and that nothing is ethically wrong or immoral. In the event of an abortion for whatever reason, how could the use of that embryo for the enhancement of medical practices and human life be a desecration? While I understand the Catholic Church’s position here, I just do not agree and see so much potential that currently is being wasted. It is my feeling that it would be giving life from
where no life could come.
Directive 55.
From my point of view, I agree with what directive 55 that mentions all patients have the equal right to be informed about their conditions. The importance of knowing their medical condition and/or conditions should be talked about before any decision are made, because if they don’t know what exactly what type of condition their dealing with, they won’t make any hasty decisions about their health. When the patients have terminal illnesses their pretty much feeling depressed, and the majority of these patients are more likely wanting to end their lives. I feel that with the physicians’ help, meaning how they’ll be able to help their patients control and possibly alleviate depression. Would be by providing the best of care to their patients, and possibly helping the patient feel physical comfort. However, if the physician helps the patient end their life, I believe that the physician is not responsible for the ending a life because they thought it was in the best interest of what their patient wanted.
Directive 59.
From directive 59 I would have to say I disagree… I disagree because the decisions have to be in accordance with the Catholic moral teachings. What if you’re not Catholic and you have other religious practice, and or believe in something different. It’s unethical to force your beliefs on someone else. Although, I would have to agree with the position on a adult patient who is able to make decisions concerning the use and or withdrawal of a life sustaining procedures.
The Catholic health care system has been helping care for the sick and dying for many years. Classroom discussion however has helped us to realize that attributing good or bad character to a person or organization does not necessarily imply that their behavior is ethical in all situations. I would like to address directives 60 and 61 and attempt to establish that these directives are not ethical in their statements.
There are valid points that would ring true to many people regarding allowing a patient dignity and a right to make decisions about their life. The overall statement in directive 61 however is not applicable to all situations. For example there is mention in the directive of redemptive suffering, and when pain cannot be managed the patient should be reminded of this. In times when a patient is suffering and in constant and severe pain this may not be comforting. The patient living day to day in the condition they are in now may negate any positive effects derived from thoughts of redemptive suffering. This does not directly deal with the patients suffering. Inducing unconsciousness for a period of time could bring about needed rest and relief however the directive does not allow for this and to me is unethical.
The idea stated in 60 and 61 regarding patients dying with dignity might seem noble but there are situations in which a patient’s death may not be dignifying. There are people who have terminal cancer and pain medications do not help. For a person in this situation the suffering is prolonged and great. This does not seem like a dignified way of dying. These directives are strictly against assisted suicide and euthanasia. It seems to me if a patient is clearly aware of the situation and wishes to no longer be in immense pain they should be allowed to make the decision to have a less painful death. So in a sense not allowing them the right to chose to die is not ethical and takes away their dignity. A doctor might not have to go so far as euthanasia but perhaps they could give the patient the means with which to end their suffering. This would seem more ethical and also would allow the patient to have dignity.
Leonel Martinez
PHI213
#59-#60
Ever since science discovered medicines and medical procedures, the church and bishops have always had an opinion on it. But in time, these new discoveries have been accepted by the church. They had to realize, it has benefited mankind. If it was up to the church, mankind would still be in the dark ages. They would be suppressing any new discovery by mankind or crucifying them for just mentions them. But we now live in an age where some religions are now more accepting. As new medicine procedures are discovered, the church will always have an opinion on what is right or wrong.
But who is right and wrong, when a book ten years old is replaced, was it wrong. Or was it just replaced because of new ideas that made more sense, or better to comprehend. What about a book that is one thousand years old, is the information in it still considered to be comprehendible. If I ever want a procedure done that is immoral to the church, but accepted by society, who is to say that I’m wrong. If I don’t see anything wrong with the belief of their rules why should my beliefs be wrong? For all I know that procedure will probably be accepted by the church in a couple of years, as other procedures have.
If I am a competent adult who withdraws from a life sustaining procedure, it should be my right to decide that. So if the decisions I make don’t hurt anyone, why should that be immoral or wrong for the church. If my decision is contrary to the church they should accept it and let it be. The churches decisions have always been accepted by society even when people oppose of them. If I refuse to take any medicine for my flu but there is a possibility that I might get sicker or die, is withdrawing from a life sustaining procedure be any different. I could die or not but it’s not affecting the church in any way, but only me. I think as long as one knows the consequences of the decisions they make, it should be there right.
To most people when they imagine dying, they imagine it peacefully and surrounded by family, because that’s how it’s suppose to happen. But what if you don’t die like that, but instead you suffer painfully before dying. Assisted suicide is something that the church and a majority of people are against. But when you’re the one in pain and suffering does ones opinion suddenly change to endorse assisted suicide. I once hurt my back in a car accident a couple of years ago. Till this day when I think of the pain, it still haunts me. The pain in my back was the most excruciating pain I have ever felt. Prescriptions, chiropractic, rest nothing worked, but in time it went away.
Now if the doctors would’ve told me that there was nothing they could do to ease or take away the pain. And if they also told me that it was going to be forever until I died. Assisted suicide might have sounded pretty good after a couple of years in agony with that pain. Even though the church says it’s wrong. But I guess what I’m trying to say is, you have to be in the patients’ position or go through some ordeal of pain, to understand why they want to die. I can see now why it’s a very controversial subject but in the end, I’m the one going to hell for committing suicide as the church says, not them.
I choose to agree with directives 63,64,and 65 because I feel that many lives can be saved by the donation of even one individuals organs who no longer needs them and at the same time it is not causing harm to them in any way. It also has many benefits to humankind and individuals given the right to decide in advance to participate in the option of donating organs in advance. This option gives the competent individual the right to be informed by a professional trained physician to inform that individual of the pros and cons of the decision they choose. Providing that the Physician is informing the individual and or guardian based on facts and not there own beliefs as of what is to happen and what they may think is the right decision. If this were an unsafe procedure statistics would not show the facts of how many people have donated and received life all because one person decided to donate there organs. Another positive point is that it does not matter your race color or religion a person can donate and help to save a persons life weather it be a family member, close friend or someone in dyer need because of such a shortage of organs needed and high demand for them. If believe that everything happens for a reason. Maybe we are here to help out one another for the greater good of humankind by donating organs we can contribute to our part in society to help others have a second chance in life. Who knows you or a family member may need an organ one day and because we have been given the technology and option to do so, we can now make this happen, so that life can go on.
I would also have to disagree with 60 because people should not have to go through such suffering. If circumstances were the individual had no possible chance in recovering and was in tremendous amounts of pain, I think it would be far more excruciating to make the person endure a painful rest of life that they can no longer enjoy, because of there circumstances. Providing that they are mentally competent and fully aware of the consequences by several medical physicians and many test. In addition, if that person is choosing the decision for the legitimate reasons not because they cannot take the burdens of life in general and its there absolute decision.
I do believe that directive number 63 is ethical. There are so many people out there that need organs, why let healthy organs go to waste. The organs can save lives and it’s that person’s choice to do whatever they would like with their organs. Not to mention, if the person wants them to go to research then that should be granted. There are so many things yet to be discovered in medicine. The use of donating organs and giving them up for research can benefit many people if this action is encouraged. I also believe that the person who is being encouraged to donate or give their organs up for research should not be over encouraged to do so; if they do not want to part take in doing so.
I do believe that directive 60 is ethical. No one should have that right to end or assist that person in ending their life despite any kind of suffering. Who knows what kind of mental state that person is in, in the first place? I’m sure if anyone found out that they were terminally ill they would be quite vulnerable. Furthermore, even if that person is completely competent; it still shouldn’t be done. Personally, the thought of assisted suicide or euthanasia just comes to me as murder; but that’s just my personal belief.
I definitely believe that directive 55 is ethical. I do feel that everyone should receive all the information of their illness and what state they stand in of their illness. It’s important for everyone to know. If that person has people who depend on that person, then arrangements should be made for those dependants. In addition, it’s important for that person to make plans with their family on how they want their burial or whatever kind of funeral service provided for them. Also, that person who is ill should receive all appropriate support to help them get through their illness. Whether it is spiritual support or any other kind of support that particular person may need.
Directive #55)
I personally believe that any persons who are in danger of death from illness,
accident, advanced age, or similar conditions should be provided with
appropriate opportunities to prepare for death if they are conscious enough to
respond and make their own decision. They should be allowed to understand the
condition they are in and what possible medical procedures can be done to make
them either get better or head for death. It is appropriate for the individual
to be able to discuss their medical issue with family members to decide what the
individual wants and how they want things done. If applicable the patient should
be able to ask to write a well and or a medical power of attorney to whom may
decide whether the individual should or should not be resuscitated in matter of
a death situation. If applicable all humans should be given the opportunity to
prepare for their own death in matters of critical conditions.
i chose directive #63 wich i strongly belive is completely ethicle beacause i belive that it is ones choice i belive that it is ones right to chose what they want done with their body after they die i think it shouldent matter what kind of hospitil or facility you are in if you want your organs to be donated to somebody who needs them or to some kind of research it should be your choice nobody should choose for you it is your body and you should be able to do with it as you please
i also chose directive #64 to wich i am partial to i think that the part that talks about the organs should not be removed untill death has been determind makes no sence at all what physician in there right mind would remove an organ from a person who is not dead but in the circumstance that the organ being removed will not cause death to the doner then it is ok for the organ to be removed as long as it is with the proper consent and the other part does it really matter who determines death should it really matter if the physicion determining death is a member of the transplant team or not what if there is no other physicion around there is a time limit in wich those organs have to be removed and if thats persons wishs was to be an organ doner should they not honer that persons wishs just beacause the physision onduty is a member of the transplant team i belive that a persons wishs for after there death should be honerd no matter what
Debra Phillips
PHI213
July 8, 2010
60. "Euthanasia is an action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way. Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death. This directive is strictly against assisted suicide and euthanasia."
There are many valid reasons why a person would choose euthanasia as their method of death. The one that I hear most often is that the individual would like to choose how and when they would like to leave this life and the physical bodies that they have been given. The individual can then choose to ask someone with a greater medical knowledge for assistance in ending their lives. While I believe that directive #60 is ethical, I also feel that each situation is unique. I believe that the circumstances of each individual need examined carefully and with respect to their point of view. And as long as the patient is able to make rational and logical decisions, they should be able to end their lives as they please.
While many would argue that life is a precious gift to us all, many see a life that is un-free of pain and suffering as no value at all. I believe someone who no longer has an opportunity to live a life free of pain and anguish is no longer experiencing a quality life. It is at this point that a patient should be allowed to pass way with dignity and the self respect that they deserve. We have been given these bodies to care for throughout our lives but at the moment we are at our weakest, we often find that we are no longer in control of those bodies, but more than often doctors, religious directives and family members now control them. Who really is to say what our personal human bodies threshold for pain really is?
While the Catholic Hospitals show that they support life, they do not say exactly what quality of life an individual may have. They state that individuals should be shown loving care, psychological and spiritual support. They do not however state how they will do that when the patient feels unloved, spiritually oppressed, and mentally as well as physically drained by the church that they have supported all of their lives. It is often hard to find an individual who is suffering praising their god for the pain that they are in.
While I feel that this initiative keeps others from deliberate killing of patients, I feel that it also hinders those who can end suffering, from being able to do so.
# 60
Euthanasia is an action or omission that of it or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way. Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death.
My position on this directive is that if the patient is competent they should be allowed to make the decision that is best for them. No matter what kind of hospital they are being treated in, the physician should always put the patient’s needs over the rules of the church or anyone who tries to take away their rights. Therefore, even though I personally do not agree with euthanasia in all situations, the patient should be allowed to make any decision concerning their life. If the patient is not conscious then the family should have the right to go to the hospital board and request euthanasia for their loved one. If the physicians know they cannot be helped, and then they should be able to choose euthanasia, if their loved ones think that it is the best option. No one should be told they have to live and suffer because some people do not agree with their decisions. Our decisions that we make for our life or the lives of the ones we love should be held at a higher level than the doctors who know nothing about the life of the patient.
# 62
The physician or competent medical authority in accordance with responsible and commonly accepted scientific criteria should make the determination of death.
The physician or competent medical authority should not have all of the control over someone’s life. No one should have the right to tell you how to live or die. As long as the patient is competent or their loved ones aware of what the patient wanted before they were incapacitated then the decision should be their choice completely. Even though I do not completely agree with euthanasia, the final decision should rest with the patient or their loved ones. I do not believe any hospital has the right to deny the patient’s last wish, because of some rules made by a church that has nothing to do with the patient’s desires. I believe euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be made legal, so that patients have the right to choose when and how they die.
I chose directive #42 wich i dont agree with i think it is unethicle because it shouldent matter if a women is rich or poor in some situations when a women cant have babys they will do anything for one and if haveing a surrogate mother is their last chance they will get the money no matter what they gotta do for it i dont think that a religion should be able to tell you that you cant pay somebody to have a baby for you or anything else i think that if you want a baby that bad and you got the money than do it and if you cant afford it than theres always adoption theres always gonna be a baby in some part of this world needing a family.
i also chose directive #43 wich i agree with i think that a clinic that offers fertilitty treatment should also offer other solutions to those couples who cant concive i think that maybe if they offer other solutions maybe the familys who cant afford infertillitty treatment maybe will decide on giveing a loveing home to those babys who have already been born and need a careing and loveing family to bring them into their home i think that every family that cant concive should be offerd other solutions just because some couples cant have babys doesent mean that they cant make a family
I agree with directive 55 as it addresses many extremely important concerns regarding end of life decisions and care. This directive supports providing the patient with information to help him/her understand the disease process as well as a prognosis so that the individual can discuss such information with family or the healthcare team. Such information plays a major role in the process of informed consent and decision making. By providing the patient and family with necessary information, a decision can be made based on the patient and family’s desires after consideration of this information. Additionally, all patients should be afforded the opportunity to participate in spiritual support; as such support helps the patient derive what their illness means to him/her and can help the patient and family cope with the loss and grieving process. This directive is appropriate as it preserves the patient’s/family’s autonomy and allows the patient to make choices that ensure the patient’s dignity is maintained.
Directive 57 is important because it allows the patient to elect out of life-sustaining interventions that the patient sees as excessive. For example, this directive would enable a patient to establish a do not resuscitate order in the event that he/she experiences cardiac arrest. Patients can identify situations or interventions such as heroic measures, placement of enteral feeding tubes, mechanical ventilation, or other life sustaining measures that he/she does not wish to be subjected to. Again, this directive preserves patient autonomy and dignity.
Directive 60 addresses Euthanasia and assisted suicide; moreover, this directive strictly prohibits participation in such actions. This directive states that those requesting euthanasia should “receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of death” (USCCB). These are rights of all patients; moreover, I feel that—ethically—a healthcare provider must never take part in euthanasia or assisted suicide as participation in such an action directly violates the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.
Post a Comment