Question

should respect. The word "euthanasia" draws its roots from Greek meaning "good death." As it is used in this discussion, it means "the act of ending the life of a person suffering from either a terminal illness, or an incurable disease." The American Medical Association is against physicians assisting in euthanasia. There is currently only one state in the US that allows for euthanasia, and that is Oregon, where in 1997, the "Death With Dignity Act" went into effect. Euthanasia advocates stress that it should be allowed as an extension of a person's autonomy. Those who are against euthanasia often say that it can lead to the devaluation of human life, and to a slippery slope in which the old and disabled will be killed on the whims of healthy people. We examined one case and the Oregon law to view the ethics of euthanasia. A woman was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (the same disease that Stephen Hawking has) 5 years ago. This is a condition that destroys motor nerves, making control of movement impossible, while the mind is virtually unaffected. People with motor neurone disease normally die within 4 years of diagnosis from suffocation due to the inability of the inspiratory muscles to contract. The woman's condition has steadily declined. She is not expected to live through the month, and is worried about the pain that she will face in her final hours. She asks her doctor to give her diamorphine for pain if she begins to suffocate or choke. This will lessen her pain, but it will also hasten her death. About a week later, she falls very ill, and is having trouble breathing. Questions for Case #6 • Does she have a right to make this choice, especially in view of the fact that she will be dead in a short while (say six hours)? Is this choice an extension of her autonomy? Is the short amount of time she has to live ethically relevant? Is there an ethical difference between her dying in 6 hours and dying in a week? What about a year and how do you draw this distinction? Is the right for a patient's self-determination power on the part of others to aid her so that she can exercise her rights kall herself. She can't move, but should someone be forced to help her, or to find someone to help her? Should the money used to care for this woman be tak man be taken into account, when she is being helped? Do you think that leasing euthanasia could create conflicts of interest for the patient or the doctor will people feel that they need to end their lives earlier to save money? you were the physician, what would you do? Note: if you would pass her off to nother doctor knowing he or she would do it, does this free you from you ethical obligations?

please help with this ethics assignments

Answer 1

• Every individual who is an adult with mental soundness have the rights to decide on the treatment they receive. On the basis of principle of ethics (autonomy) one can accept or refuse a treatment or request or deny a treatment for their betterment to relieve their problems or suffering. This choice of patient is an extension of autonomy.
• The ethical decision often has a very fine line between what is right and what is wrong. The short amount of time she is going to live is ethically relevant on moral grounds but it has some difference when it comes to dying in hours to weeks (this period is a very short period where ethical acceptance and relevance is very complicated to make decision ,overall it is the life of an individual before ending.It is possible only when the drawback outweighs the benefits.)In case of year the ethical decision strongly suggest no for euthanasia rather than providing comfort measures for the patient.
• Legally the money spent on this are taken into accounts as per the law.Though conflicts can arise between patient or doctor when appropriate measures are not taken to a very little extent upon legalizing because the decision is made by patients rather than a provider. People often doesn't feel to end their life in the financial grounds to save it until it is unbearable or they are neglected from support from family and close relatives
• It is the legal responsibility of a provider to meet the patient needs as oer their wish.A sound ethical decision if made cannot make a provider to shift patient to another provider for this service.Ratger the doctors are more emotional at this point because they procured this designation to save life but not to kill life.The ethical decision and patient beneficence outweighs the decision process here. Moreover passing the responsibility to others dies not obligate ethically.