Read the Ethical and
Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fifth Edition,
Part Five - Issues in Care for the Dying. Are the directives ethical?
Why or why not?
Due August 31, 2012
The directives can be found on the class BlackBoard site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I believe that this is ethical. The Catholic church encourages organ and tissue donation but they don't allow the organs to be harvested until the patient has been declared "dead". They don't allow the doctor who declared the patient to be dead to harvest the organs/tissues.
They also say that there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water- even if the patient cannot take food or water orally. However, it is not expected to be administered if it's not expected to prolong or improve the patients life. They also state that this treatment should not be forced if it causes a burden or discomfort to the patient. They just want to ensure that food and water is given when it is expected to maintain/improve the patients quality of life.
The church policy is all about informing the next of kin/decision maker and providing counseling and support, when necessary. I don't find any of this to be unethical.
Chelsea Holgate
I believe that the directives in the issues for care of the dying are ethical. From the beginning of the passage it clearly states that their main concern is the patient. They are there to comfort, and support them in any which way, as long as it doesn’t cause conflict with their moral teachings.
Once a dying patient comes in, not only are they informed of their illness but they are to understand it. The information is also extended to family members. Besides from the comfort and support, they are given an option to receive spiritual support.
They also state that they have an obligation to feed and hydrate their patients, which tells me that they are not neglected while in their last stage of life.
Although, they are against euthanasia and suicide, the Catholic Health care services will help alleviate pain with appropriate remedies.
Isabel Altamirano
After reading the religious directives for Catholic Health Care, I found their morals to be profoundly ethical. Some topics which were covered within the “Care for Beginning Life” were highly aimed towards the respect for Catholic morals.
The Catholic Church believes that a child is that of a “supreme gift from god and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents”. With high respect for marriage and parenthood, they believe reasoning’s of limiting childbirth is normal by natural means only. The Catholic Church shares its respects highly for natural contraceptives and that they do not condone or take part in birth contraceptives. The belief on homolozygous and hetrolozygous is that it is prohibited as it interferes with marriage and procreation.
Other topics covered by Catholic Health care are highly ethical, as the obligation is found to be met with the patients and their well being. Comfort as well is necessary and required for each patient. With that being said, I found the directives of Catholic Health Care to be very ethical, and they hold high moral.
Please excuse my blog in this post it was meant for our other assignment. x)
"The task is to care even when it cannot cure" The Catholics moral's on medicine are very ethical, in the aspect of "Care for the Dying". The Catholic hold very high beliefs as well as obligation to providing comfort to those in need and whom are at their last stages of life.
I personally find it very interesting that for a potential organ donor, the physician whom declares death should not be a transplant doctor, due to possible conflict.
The logical thoughts seem true, and that to me seems highly ethical. The primary fundamental of health care is to "care" and that is definitely met within this particular directive.
The directives, overall, were more ethical than unethical. This is the case because it essentially respects, encourages and upholds all the rights of the individual. For instance, it teaches that an individual who wishes to "forgo" should be let go because it's his or her wish. Inversely, an individual whose wish is or was to remain alive until a natural death comes should never be left for death. This shows that the church is merely a complaisant agent because it only does what the individual wants. However, there were parts of the directives that sort of pointed to the unethical direction of the spectrum. In the directives, it says that a person should not suffer pain and to avoid pain upon sick individuals, medications that take away the pain should be given to the individual even if the medications might "shorten" their lives. This part is quite paradoxical because it begs the questions; which should be the primary concern for the physicians? Take their pain away through medications that might shorten their lives or prolong their ives by not giving them medications even when the patients are in severe pain? It's a question of morality that the church must consider.
Ali Hassan.
The Catholic Health Care directives, in my opinion, were mostly ethical. They firmly believe in the comfort of the patient over basically everything. They believe if a medicine can alleviate the pain of the patient preparing for death, that it should be given. They want the last years/months/days/minutes of the patient to be pain free.
The fact that the physician who declares the patient dead cannot be a part of the transplant team makes it to where the organs will be randomly donated. And there wouldn't be that conflict of interest.
They also believe Euthanasia is a form of suicide. So it is okay if your suffering to medicate but to take the "easy" way out would be against the Catholic religion. In fact to keep an individual alive is our obligation, even if there in a vegetative state. But that becomes a conflict of its own because they could possibly be in pain and there is no way of knowing.
Evan McFarland
In this paper called the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” there are many different sections that focus on the life of patients. For example, One of the directives talks about the ill and the dying and how they should be treated. There are many sides that many people will have different beliefs. However, I believe that most of the ideals in this passage are indeed ethical, however I disagree one.
In this passage, one sections that greatly got my attention was how the Health Care Ministry faces the death of any patient. They face death in a positive way, which they encounter with faith. For instance, if a person is on the merge of dying and there’s nothing that could help that person stay alive, the ministry gives them medicine or any type of therapy. Even though the medicine wont do anything to help the individual, it still gives them a little hope to keep there life. I believe this strategy is ethical because the patient will feel that the ministry tried to sustain there life. Maybe, it wrong because they lie to the patient, and gives them false pretenses. But if it was me, in that death bed, I wouldn’t want to know that I was about to die. Id rather do anything possible to keep my life, and know that I did everything possible to stay alive.
I also agree with the fact that the Ministries have the right to provide patients with food and water, as long as it doesn’t harm them in any way. Because in some cases, like the one mentioned in this passage, food and water would harm the patient by causing them physical discomfort. Therefore, patients have the right to deny this assistance.
This paper also seemed to mention the idea of euthanasia. I disagree with the idea of euthanasia completely because there’s people that will be willing to go through so many pains and suffering just to stay alive. Whereas, euthanasia is just the easy way out. I believe life is precious, and it shouldn’t be up to decide when to end a life. It will do it at its own time.
For the most part, I believe the directives are ethical. The patient is the biggest worry, such as if they are comfortable or uncomfortable. The directives also state that the patient does have a choice to deny life-saving means if it will affect them negatively, such as if they cannot afford it or if they will only prolong their pain and suffering.
They will also feed and hydrate a person who is physically unable to do so. For instance, if a person is in a coma or had a surgery which left them incapable of feeding themselves, they would be fed and would get the proper nutrients needed to sustain their bodies. However, they will not force it on s patient if it will not help them, or if it will hinder them.
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that "the task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure". No matter your beliefs, that is the truth of medicine, and the directives given adhere to this message. Therefore, I believe that these directives are most definitely ethical.
n my opinion I completely agree with this passage. The one thing that I read and after that nothing else mattered was when they talked about how everyone no matter what was wrong with them should get the same help. That is a hundred percent true for me. I have always been raised to believe in that and I would wish that for all people to believe in because to me i believe that is ethical. No matter if you are how they say a "persistent vegetative state." (PVS)
To me they speak with there hearts out there. They talk as humans do with there feelings. Religion to me is just how you feel about something and how you believe in it strongly. By saying that even if you cant become fully healthy you should still be given a chance just amazes me. Everyone should be given a chance because everyone one of us has that right.
I think that the directives covered in the reading are ethical. I agreed with most of them and found them reasonable. The main concern of Catholic Health Care Services is maintaining the highest quality of life and doing so in a way that follows the Catholic faith.
The directives explain that caring for a patient is not just physical, but mental as well. Helping the sick and dying by caring for the mind is equally important to caring for the body. I thought this part of the reading was really interesting, because they make sure to help their patients work through the mental issues that come with illness and not just help heal their physical problems.
I agreed with most of the directives, but there were a couple in the section about conception that I disagreed with. Although I can understand the reasoning behind directives 40, 41, and 42, I do not agree with them. I think that married couples should have the option of artificial fertilization or a surrogate mother to conceive their children.
For the most part, I agree with everything in this section, it seems that there is good intent here. However there were a couple issues that I disagreed with.
“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.”
It seems to me that the meaning of this is open to selective interpretation, and manipulation, even misinterpretation, and it creates somewhat of a loophole. Many times we say one thing and mean another. How can one ensure what ones “intent” is? However, this section, as it is intended, is completely ethical, I think. As long as one is not medicating with the deliberate intent to cause death, it is okay. As long as its intent is to lessen a patient's pain, even if it shortens life, it is acceptable. That seems fine.
“In order to prevent any conflict of interest, the physician who determines death should not be a member of the transplant team.”
This is also a good policy- this takes emotion or a biased intent out of the equation.
“Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes.”
This is where I disagree- what is the distinction between using a 20-year-old's kidneys, heart, or liver and using fetal stem cells? The organism is DEAD and its tissue can serve a useful purpose, having therapeutic intent or research. I don't see why it matters where the tissue comes from. If a child dies, and that child's kidneys may be used to save the life of another child, or they may be used to research a pathological dysfunction within the childs kidneys, there is no problem there, as long as an informed consent form is obtained. However, when we talk of using fetal stem cells, suddenly it becomes sacred tissue, and it would be “unethical” to use the tissue for research or utilize it in some therapeutic way. It is better to just throw it away. I don't see WHY the line is drawn where it is, or why there is a line at all. If it were a newborn baby, and the parents or guardians sign an informed consent form, the tissue can be used without dilemma. However, if the tissue comes from an abortion, it is suddenly off limits, and it would be wrong to utilize this tissue; its potential value suddenly is outweighed by the source and should just be discarded with the medical waste. To me, this is indeed a waste. Hundreds of years ago, before the age of enlightenment, the church told us what we could paint, what we could write about, and told us how we should see the world, which they told us was also flat. It was blasphemous to cut into a dead body to study its structure. Henry Gray, who brought us Grays Anatomy, had to dissect bodies under cover of night and then burn them before daybreak because it was such an unspeakable act, that had anyone have discovered what he was doing, he would have been executed. This seems utter ridiculous to us today. These distinctions of right and wrong seem so arbitrary, hindering, and useless. From about 1920 to 1933, alcohol was banned. Today, this seems ridiculous, yet cigarettes are allowed and kill thousands every year. Yet, its ok just because “WE SAY SO.” How and by who are these decisions made? How do such decisions serve the majority of society, and DO they serve us? Or do these judgements, in fact, hinder us? It seems to me that we are still clutching onto old ideas and beliefs, in the same way the Coyote in the roadrunner Looney Tunes cartoons clutches a boulder as they are both falling towards the ground. What is the point of such a useless action?
Other than that, I agree with the rest of part 5.
I also think it is both good and bad that a patient must be declared legally dead before their organs can be harvested. It is good for obvious reasons, but also bad. I did say bad, not "unethical" Let me explain: I had recently saw a documentary on consciousness, wherein a gangbanger who was in a shooting was clinically brain dead for the last 6 weeks or so, and they were not going to recover. The family was faced with the decision on whether to continue the nutrition via the NG feeding tube. They decided to withdraw the tube. During this time, there was another patient who needed a kidney transplant, the gang banger was a match, and the family signed off on the procedure. In such a case, time is a factor, and while waiting for the gangbanger to pass, the other patient died. If this was your mother who needed the kidney, and the other family had said, "here, our son is a match and he is brain-dead and we just made the difficult decision to stop nutrition and let him go. She can have his kidney."
Then imagine that it is against hospital policy to do so until the patient is declared dead. Then imagine that your mother dies waiting on the banger to pass.
Both parties were in agreement, yet the hospital's hands were bound by red tape and it wound up costing your mother her life.
It was a very sad set of circumstances. I understand that this was not the intention of the hospital, and that the regulations were there for good reason, but sometimes they can hinder, as seen in this unfortunate circumstance.
I believe that that directives for care of the dying are ethical. The Catholic church applies it's respect for human life and "eternal life" to these.
They state that the person that is experiencing the serious illness or death should be well informed of their condition and should be provided with all necessary information and opportunities to prepare for their death. This to me allows the patient the time to overcome the "fear of dying" that many people speak of. The patient is educated about their condition and provided all necessary support.
The directives that the Catholic church has in place allow the patient to die with dignity and comfort. These measures also provided the families with the support and comfort they need so that they are able to make the appropriate decisions for that person when they are no longer able.
After reading the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic health Care,” I found this to be ethical.
Catholics believe that all persons should be kept as comfortable and pain free as possible. But there was one thing that I began to wonder. Catholics don’t believe in suicide, or helping a patient end their suffering, correct? But what if keeping the patient alive is doing more harm than good?
However, it is very clear to see that the main concern is the patient, as it should be of course. Catholics believe that all people should be given adequate treatment. Whether it’s a terminally ill patient, or a patient with a condition that can be cured.
After reading the directives, "Issues in Care for the Seriously Ill and Dying", I found most of them to be ethical. However, there were a few I found to be unethical.
Unethical:
62. The determination of death sould be made by the physician or competent medical authority in accordance with responsible and commonly accepted scientific criteria.
Reason:
I believe the determination of death should be made by the patient or patients family, not the physician. I belive the physician's responsibilty is to inform the patient and patient's family and allow them to make a decision. I don't know about you, but If I was a phsician I would not want to be the one determining life and death. After all you are a physician, NOT God!!!
Unethical
59. The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
Reason
Who are we kidding here? Catholic moral teaching? Not everyone is Catholic or belive in Catholic morals. I belive that free an informed judgment made by a competent adult patient should always be respected and complied with unless it would break the law or hurt another life.
Justin Hart
The Catholic Health Care system sounds acceptable except for section number four, The Beginning of a New Life. They do not support birth control. As a young girl I had two very close friends get pregnant a month apart at the age of 16. Even though it was very hard for my mother to make a decision that she wasn't ready for, she knew she had to. My mother put me on birth control. She took me to my Dr. who took care of me in a very professional manner and explained to me what I was getting into and that birth control would not prevent STD's or aids. My Dr. also took me threw other steps to prevent pregnancy, STD's and aids. I am now 25 years old and going to school. All of my friends have many children and I have watched them all struggle being single young mothers. If it wasn't for my mother thinking of me and my future that day, I might be stuck with 5 kids and a low income job just like them.
After reading the directives in part five of "Ethical Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services"
I found most to be ethical expect for:
"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"
I highly disagree with this directive. The reason being that there are many people that unfortunately are victims of horrible accidents such as car crashes from which as a result their body is left in a vegetative state...permanently. There have been many cases in which people have been in this state for many years, 6, 8,10 years without being able to move, talk, think. I do not believe that this way of living is ethical at all. They will never be able to have a " normal" life again because they will be bed ridden, pretty much asleep for the rest of their lives. This is no way to live for anyone, it is just plain suffer. I believe that people who keep their loves ones in this state for years are acting selfish and not thinking about their loves one's quality of life.
"62. The determination of death should be made by the physician or competent medical authority in accordance with responsible and commonly accepted scientific criteria"
This is another directive that I highly disagree with. A physicians job should solely be to save a patients life. To determine if the patients body is able to function properly and determine what quality of life a patient will have. If a person is in a vegetative state, the decision to " unplug" should be up to their family.
As much as a disagree with the two above directives. The one below is one that I highly condone. I am completely in agree acne with organ donation. The fact that a death of someone can result in the salvation of many others is amazing! I believe it to to be very ethical that the physician that determines the death of a patient should not be part of the transplant team. This helps prevent conflict of interest.
"64. 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"
I believe that the Catholic Health care system's directives are ethical. Treating someone who is helpless in way that you would want to be treated. Directive number 2 states that they give caregivers mutual respective because of the help they provide those in need. To me this what health care is truly about.
Treating food and shelter as a necessity by providing it to patients regardless of their financial means is actually doing what Christ himself would do. And that it is expected of all of us to do on to others.
Directive number 6...treating patients regardless of race, sex, age,etc this is not only ethical, but a selfless directive.
I think a person should be able to choose to live or die, but they should not expect anyone to go against what they believe to help, nor should that person expect you to. No one should be declared dead early to harvest organs or any other part of the body to save someone else. We don’t have that right to choose who lives or dies. I think we should do what is medically responsible and do everything in our power to make sure our patients get the best treatment you can give. Everyone deserves that. If you don’t know what a patient wants and they can’t eat or drink or anything on own, you should do those things as if they told you to, but as soon as they can and if they tell you they want any of the treatments or to be feed or gave water then from there on out you should respect there decision and not do so till they change their mind or the leave this world and pass away. We may not like their decision but we should respect it. Everyone should have the right to choose their own destination. Sorry this is late I could not figure out how to blog and someone showed me.
Jessica Sundstrom
Post a Comment