I disagree most with the Voluntary Active Euthanasia article by Dan W. Brock. The author argues that the values of individual self-determination and individual well-being support the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia. I feel that these values should not apply to the choice of death for an individual. It is inherently wrong to kill a person. Any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to a decrease of the respect for human life. Dan Brock also rejects the idea that active euthanasia is incompatible with the fundamental professional commitments of a physician. I agree, however, with Daniel Callahan who believes that the power of the physician must be used only to cure or comfort, never to kill.
The concept I most disagree with in the text section regarding active euthanasia is the discussion about infants. I agree that is horrible for the family to watch a sick child suffer, it is a financial burden to provide care throughout their life, and that the child will not have a quality of life comparable to a healthy child. However, I feel that the life of even a sick child has worth. If we cannot effectively treat or cure a disease it is usually because we do not know enough about the cause or mechanism of the disease to do so. Therefore, we need people with that disease to be able to study it. We may know the exact progression of it and that the child will die by a particular age, but in the time they live they can save millions of others. Also, I know a child who has a severe disability and will die by the age of 16. Despite the fact that he does not attend a public school and he is in a wheelchair with a rod in his spine, he is a happy child with a good life. I don’t think any doctor can make the call of whether a child’s life is worth living because worth can be measured in numerous different ways.
I most disagree with the reading by Callahan. While killing and allowing to die often have different moral consequences, in the end it is irrelevant to the fact that doctors should listen to the requests of their competent patients in order to honor their autonomy and well-being (as stated by Brock). I don’t believe that allowing doctors to kill goes against the “moral center” of medicine. By allowing them to kill, we are not giving them any new knowledge that they didn’t already possess. I am not even a doctor and I can think of plenty of ways to kill someone. Callahan thinks in gaining this knowledge, doctors will abuse their power and lose the trust of their patients, when this is simply not realistic given our current legal system. If this becomes a part of a doctor’s job description in the future, there is no reason the same doctor that saves needs to be the same doctor that kills. This is the same as assuming an anesthesiologist can do the job a dermatologist, as an example. The reality is that killing and curing will still remain separate entities in the medical field, not to be feared for their potential to get “mixed up.” A doctor simply needs to honor a patient’s request, and if that is death, try to do it as humanely as possible (which, as stated by Rachels, may or may not be to simply let them die).
The article I disagree most with is Daniel Callahans "Killing and Allowing to Die." I do not believe, that in a medical standpoint, that there is a difference between killing and allowing to die. Both choices are ultimately up to the patient or the power of attorney to decide. I also disagree that euthanasia would bring about abuse of power by the physician. It is not something that would be taken lightly. Morals would still stand in medicine and I beleive that patients would still hold respect and trust in their doctors. I agree that it is the physicians duty to comfort the patient, but keeping that patient alive might not always be the most comforting thing to do. A side point I want to bring up is that I do agree that a person should be allowed to decide what is best for their own life and what they decide is good quality for their life. However, if a person is in the hospital with a terminal disease or some other kind of condition that is keeping them hospitalized, is their mind really sound enough to make that kind of decision? My opinion is that a person with some kind of terminal illness probably isn't all that stable in their decision making.
I also want to add that while I think PSA is often the more humane thing to do, as opposed to refusal of life-saving medicine, I agree with the court's decision in Washington to continue the ban on PSA, merely because of legalities (mainly, that it would be hard to ensure that non-terminally ill patients along with depressed patients don't take advantage of PSA). Also, I feel it may cause a de-valuing of life. Until better means of assessing a person's mental state are realized, along with better ways to monitor PSA, it is best left illegal for our own protection.
I mostly disagree with Brock in that I think euthanasia is incompatible with "moral center" of medicine. I don't think people who are incapable of making their own decisions to live or die should be in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have the duty to keep people alive, not kill them. I think it is the center of their moral duty as a doctor. People have self determination but in some cases they cannot make those decisions so the decision should be made before hand or by family members, not doctors.
Brock stated and I agree, that the Dr. should listen to the wishes of any patient who is competent. we must honor patients autonomy and well being. Strongly agree under the circumstances of a terminally ill pt. who still can make those decisions. Callahan way of thinking is right in the sense that some Dr. will abuse their power and use pt. for their own gain, and then patients will lose trust in Doctors. Yet where do Doctor find the answers to so many unanswered questions. I'm torn it's almost as if it's a catch 22 situation. Our legal system today doesn't help much either.
I disagree most with the Voluntary Active Euthanasia article by Dan W. Brock. The author argues that the values of individual self-determination and individual well-being support the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia. I feel that these values should not apply to the choice of death for an individual. It is inherently wrong to kill a person. Any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to a decrease of the respect for human life. Dan Brock also rejects the idea that active euthanasia is incompatible with the fundamental professional commitments of a physician. I agree, however, with Daniel Callahan who believes that the power of the physician must be used only to cure or comfort, never to kill.
ReplyDeleteThe concept I most disagree with in the text section regarding active euthanasia is the discussion about infants. I agree that is horrible for the family to watch a sick child suffer, it is a financial burden to provide care throughout their life, and that the child will not have a quality of life comparable to a healthy child. However, I feel that the life of even a sick child has worth. If we cannot effectively treat or cure a disease it is usually because we do not know enough about the cause or mechanism of the disease to do so. Therefore, we need people with that disease to be able to study it. We may know the exact progression of it and that the child will die by a particular age, but in the time they live they can save millions of others. Also, I know a child who has a severe disability and will die by the age of 16. Despite the fact that he does not attend a public school and he is in a wheelchair with a rod in his spine, he is a happy child with a good life. I don’t think any doctor can make the call of whether a child’s life is worth living because worth can be measured in numerous different ways.
ReplyDeleteI most disagree with the reading by Callahan. While killing and allowing to die often have different moral consequences, in the end it is irrelevant to the fact that doctors should listen to the requests of their competent patients in order to honor their autonomy and well-being (as stated by Brock). I don’t believe that allowing doctors to kill goes against the “moral center” of medicine. By allowing them to kill, we are not giving them any new knowledge that they didn’t already possess. I am not even a doctor and I can think of plenty of ways to kill someone. Callahan thinks in gaining this knowledge, doctors will abuse their power and lose the trust of their patients, when this is simply not realistic given our current legal system. If this becomes a part of a doctor’s job description in the future, there is no reason the same doctor that saves needs to be the same doctor that kills. This is the same as assuming an anesthesiologist can do the job a dermatologist, as an example. The reality is that killing and curing will still remain separate entities in the medical field, not to be feared for their potential to get “mixed up.” A doctor simply needs to honor a patient’s request, and if that is death, try to do it as humanely as possible (which, as stated by Rachels, may or may not be to simply let them die).
ReplyDeleteThe article I disagree most with is Daniel Callahans "Killing and Allowing to Die." I do not believe, that in a medical standpoint, that there is a difference between killing and allowing to die. Both choices are ultimately up to the patient or the power of attorney to decide. I also disagree that euthanasia would bring about abuse of power by the physician. It is not something that would be taken lightly. Morals would still stand in medicine and I beleive that patients would still hold respect and trust in their doctors. I agree that it is the physicians duty to comfort the patient, but keeping that patient alive might not always be the most comforting thing to do. A side point I want to bring up is that I do agree that a person should be allowed to decide what is best for their own life and what they decide is good quality for their life. However, if a person is in the hospital with a terminal disease or some other kind of condition that is keeping them hospitalized, is their mind really sound enough to make that kind of decision? My opinion is that a person with some kind of terminal illness probably isn't all that stable in their decision making.
ReplyDeleteI also want to add that while I think PSA is often the more humane thing to do, as opposed to refusal of life-saving medicine, I agree with the court's decision in Washington to continue the ban on PSA, merely because of legalities (mainly, that it would be hard to ensure that non-terminally ill patients along with depressed patients don't take advantage of PSA). Also, I feel it may cause a de-valuing of life. Until better means of assessing a person's mental state are realized, along with better ways to monitor PSA, it is best left illegal for our own protection.
ReplyDeleteI mostly disagree with Brock in that I think euthanasia is incompatible with "moral center" of medicine. I don't think people who are incapable of making their own decisions to live or die should be in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have the duty to keep people alive, not kill them. I think it is the center of their moral duty as a doctor. People have self determination but in some cases they cannot make those decisions so the decision should be made before hand or by family members, not doctors.
ReplyDeleteBrock stated and I agree, that the Dr. should listen to the wishes of any patient who is competent. we must honor patients autonomy and well being. Strongly agree under the circumstances of a terminally ill pt. who still can make those decisions.
ReplyDeleteCallahan way of thinking is right in the sense that some Dr. will abuse their power and use pt. for their own gain, and then patients will lose trust in Doctors. Yet where do Doctor find the answers to so many unanswered questions. I'm torn it's almost as if it's a catch 22 situation. Our legal system today doesn't help much either.
Friendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in chennai