Physician Assisted Suicide Discussion

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 3rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

READ THE SCENARIO AND CONSIDER THE RESPONSES AND CHOOSE THE ONE YOU THINK YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE MOST ETHICAL.

APA FORMAT. NEEDS CITATION.

Attachment preview

MODERATOR:

DO WE, AS HUMAN BEINGS, HAVE THE RIGHT TO END OUT OWN LIVES WHEN FACED WITH A PAINFUL, TERMINAL DISEASE? OR DOES SUICIDE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATE THE SANCITITY OF HUMAN LIFE? THESE ARE TRICKY QUESTIONS BOUND IN MORALS DERIVED FROM VARIOUS AND SOMETIMES CONTRADICTORY SOURCES. PROPONENTS CALL PHYSICIAN- ASSISTED SUICIDE MERCIFUL AND SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO END HUMAN SUFFERING, WHILE SOME OPPONENTS SEE IT AS AN OFFENSE TO THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. OTHER OPPONENTS RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF PAS AS AN ABROGATION OF RIGHTS IF THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS NOT OF SOUND MIND. AND WHO DECIDES WHAT “OF SOUND MIND MEANS?”

TODAY OUR SPEAKERS WILL BE DEBATING THE ETHICS OF OREGON’S DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE ACT WAS PASSED IN 1997 AND ALLOWS TERMINALLY-ILL OREGONIANS TO END THEIR LIVES THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY SELF-ADMINISTRATION OF LETHAL MEDICATIONS, EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED BY A PHYSICIAN FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE ACT WAS A CITIZEN’S INITIATIVE, ENACTED BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF VOTING OREGONIANS BELIEVED THAT PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH CERTAIN TERMINAL ILLNESSES SHOULD HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HASTEN THEIR DEATHS. 

OUR SPEAKERS TODAY ARE DR MAHAL AND DR ROBIN…

DR MAHAL:

LEGALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, BUT I THINK THAT PERHAPS PRECEDENCE IS. IS OREGON’S LAW ETHICAL AS IT STANDS? ABSOLUTELY. AND A STATEMENT FROM US WITH REGARD TO THIS LAW COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON OTHER STATES CONSIDERING SIMILAR LAWS. I BELIEVE THE ETHICS OF INFORMED PAS ARE SOUND, AND THE LAW AS IT STANDS CONFORMS TO ETHICAL STANDARDS AND PRACTICES I WOULD HOPE TO SEE ADOPTED BY OTHER STATES.

DR ROBIN: 

DR MAHAL, YOU SAY “INFORMED PAS,” AND THAT’S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION! I UNDERSTAND THAT A PATIENT MUST POSSESS TO BE A SOUND MIND TO BE ELIGIBLE, AND THE PHYSICIAN MUST CONFIRM THAT. THERE IS ALSO A STIPULATION THAT THE DOCTOR MUST OFFER MEDICAL ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING COMFORT CARE AND PAIN MANAGEMENT. 

BUT THE WAITING PERIOD TO CONSIDER THESE OPTIONS SEEMS FAIRLY SHORT. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE MODEL TO FOLLOW FOR PATIENT’S MAKING SUCH A MOMENTOUS DECISION?

MODERATOR: DO WE, AS HUMAN BEINGS, HAVE THE RIGHT TO END OUT OWN LIVES WHEN FACED WITH A PAINFUL, TERMINAL DISEASE? OR DOES SUICIDE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATE THE SANCITITY OF HUMAN LIFE? THESE ARE TRICKY QUESTIONS BOUND IN MORALS DERIVED FROM VARIOUS AND SOMETIMES CONTRADICTORY SOURCES. PROPONENTS CALL PHYSICIAN- ASSISTED SUICIDE MERCIFUL AND SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO END HUMAN SUFFERING, WHILE SOME OPPONENTS SEE IT AS AN OFFENSE TO THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. OTHER OPPONENTS RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF PAS AS AN ABROGATION OF RIGHTS IF THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS NOT OF SOUND MIND. AND WHO DECIDES WHAT “OF SOUND MIND MEANS?” TODAY OUR SPEAKERS WILL BE DEBATING THE ETHICS OF OREGON’S DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE ACT WAS PASSED IN 1997 AND ALLOWS TERMINALLY-ILL OREGONIANS TO END THEIR LIVES THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY SELF-ADMINISTRATION OF LETHAL MEDICATIONS, EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED BY A PHYSICIAN FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE ACT WAS A CITIZEN’S INITIATIVE, ENACTED BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF VOTING OREGONIANS BELIEVED THAT PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH CERTAIN TERMINAL ILLNESSES SHOULD HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HASTEN THEIR DEATHS. OUR SPEAKERS TODAY ARE DR MAHAL AND DR ROBIN… DR MAHAL: LEGALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, BUT I THINK THAT PERHAPS PRECEDENCE IS. IS OREGON’S LAW ETHICAL AS IT STANDS? ABSOLUTELY. AND A STATEMENT FROM US WITH REGARD TO THIS LAW COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON OTHER STATES CONSIDERING SIMILAR LAWS. I BELIEVE THE ETHICS OF INFORMED PAS ARE SOUND, AND THE LAW AS IT STANDS CONFORMS TO ETHICAL STANDARDS AND PRACTICES I WOULD HOPE TO SEE ADOPTED BY OTHER STATES. DR ROBIN: DR MAHAL, YOU SAY “INFORMED PAS,” AND THAT’S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION! I UNDERSTAND THAT A PATIENT MUST POSSESS TO BE A SOUND MIND TO BE ELIGIBLE, AND THE PHYSICIAN MUST CONFIRM THAT. THERE IS ALSO A STIPULATION THAT THE DOCTOR MUST OFFER MEDICAL ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING COMFORT CARE AND PAIN MANAGEMENT. BUT THE WAITING PERIOD TO CONSIDER THESE OPTIONS SEEMS FAIRLY SHORT. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE MODEL TO FOLLOW FOR PATIENT’S MAKING SUCH A MOMENTOUS DECISION? AUDIENCE: WITH TODAY’S MEDICAL ADVANCES, DOES NOT PROPER PAIN MANAGEMENT NEGATE THE NEED FOR PAS? DR MAHAL: NO. IN FACT, EVEN MANY OF THE LAW’S OPPONENTS ADMIT THAT PAIN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FAIL IN 5% CASES OF TERMINALLY-ILL PATIENTS. ANYWAY, PAIN IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF THE DIFFICULTIES TERMINALL ILL PATIENT’S FACE. THEY ALSO DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF THEIR DIGNITY AND AUTONOMY, NOT TO MENTION MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ANXIETY. MODERATOR: WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT? DR ROBIN: THE LAW STATES THAT A PATIENT MUST BE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, A RESIDENT OF OREGON, CAPABLE OF MAKING AND COMMUNICATING HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR HIM/HERSELF AND DIAGNOSED WITH A TERMINAL ILLNESS THAT WILL LEAD TO DEATH WITHIN SIX MONTHS. IT IS UP TO THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN TO DETERMINE WETHER THESE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. NOW, WE’LL HEAR REBUTTALS FROM EACH SPEAKER AND THEN TAKE TWO REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. DR MAHAL: THERE IS A 15-DAY WAIT ONCE THE PAPERWORK IS FILED, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. THAT GIVES A DOCTOR A PLENTY OF TIME TO EVALUATE THE PATIENT’S CONDITION AND SOUNDNESS OF MIND. IF THE WAITING PERIOD WERE MUCH LONGER, IT MIGHT DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION. IT’S DEFINITELY LONG ENOUGH TO ALLOW TFOR A PATIENT TO CONTACT THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE DECISION. DR ROBIN: BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT DOCTORS EXPLAIN THE ETHICAL POSITION OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE PHYSICIAN- ASSISTED SUICIDE. IF A PATIENT IS ACTING OUT OF FEAR, REMINDING THEM OF THE SANCTITY PF LIFE MIGHT SERVE TO JOG THEIR MEMORY OF WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT AND WRONG, PERHAPS TO INSPIRE THE PATIENT TO PERSEVERE AND DIE BRAVELY. I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT ALTERNATIVES MUST BE OFFERED, BUT PERHAPS MOVING FORWARD WE COULD RECOMMEND A GREATER NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING AN ETHICS-BASED REBUTTAL TO THE CONCEPT. MODERATOR: ARE DOCTORS IN OREGON FORCED TO PARTICIPATE, EVEN IF THEY OPPOSE PAS? DR MEADOWS: NO, PHYSICIANS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PRESCRIPTIONS TO PATIENTS AND PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY. ADDITIONALLY, SOME HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS- FOR EXAMPLE, A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL OR VETERANS ADMINISTRATION—HAVE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST PRACTICING THE ACT THAT PHYSICIAN MUST BE ABLE TO ABIDE BY AS TERMS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. IN THESE CASES, THE PATIENT MUST FIND ANOTHER DOCTOR LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN OREGON WHO IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE. MODERATOR: ISN’T THIS LAW A ‘ SLIPPERY SLOPE’ TOWARD EUTHANASIA? DR MAHAL: I DON’T THINK OREGON RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR A LOSOSELY WRITTEN, OPEN ENDED LAW. THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE AND GUARANTEE DIRECT PATIENT INVOLVEMENT. EUTHANASIA IS AN AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT AND OFTEN IMPLIES A PERSON’S INVOLUNTARY DEATH AND IS ILLEGAL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES AND CHOOSE THE ONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE MOST ETHICAL BY SELECTING A, B, C, D. DEFEND YOUR POSITION USING THE CONCEPTS AND THEORIES OF ETHICS WE’VE LEARNED ABOUT IN THE COURSE. A. DR MAHAL’S ASSESSMENT OF THE LAW IS REASONABLE. THE DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT IS CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED AND PROTECTS BOTH DOCTOR AND PATIENT. IN ORDER FOR PAS TO BE LEGAL, THE PATIENT MUST BE SANE AND PROPERLY INFORMED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES. THIS IS AN ETHICAL TEMPLATE THAT OTHER STATES CONSIDERING SUCH A LAW MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT. B. DR ROBIN IS HITTING SOME IMPORTANT POINTS PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO OTHER ETHICAL OPTIONS. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THE INFORMATION THE PATIENT NEEDS IS SPIRITUAL IN NATURE, NOT CLINICAL, AND THERE SHOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT. C. THE WAITING PERIOD IS ACTUALLY TOO LONG. IF PATIENT IS ALREADY SUFFERING TO THE POINT THAT HE/SHE WANTS TO DIE, WAITING AN ADDITIONAL 15 DAYS SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING AKIN TO TORTURE. THERE SHOULD BE A WAY TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS, PERHAPS RETROACTIVE FILLING AND A DECISION THAT RELIES MORE HEAVILY ON THE DOCTOR’S IMMEDIATE JUDGMENT. D. THIS IS A BAD IDEA FROM THE START. REGARDLESS OF ONE’S PERSONAL BELIEFS, STATESPONSORED SUICIDE IS NOT A GOOD PRECEDENCE FOR ANYONE. THE MESSAGE SENT HERE IS THAT LIFE IS NOT SACRED, AND IF WE OPEN THAT DOOR ANY NUMBER OF UNDERSIRABLE OUTCOMES MAY FOLLOW.

Tutor Answer

School: Duke University

Attached final. Cheers!!!!

Running Head: PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE

Physician Assisted Suicide

Student name

Institution

Date

1

PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE

2

Physician Assisted Suicide
Dr. Mahal’s assessment of the law is reasonable. The death with dignity act is carefully
constructed and protects both the doctor and the patient. In order for PAS to be legal, the patient
must be sane and properly informed about the potential alternatives. This is an ethical template
that other states considering the law might be encouraged to adopt.
The right to die depends on the decision of the patient. If the patient is of sound mind
when making the d...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors