Right to Life - Definition - Term Paper Example

Introduction The right to life is a principle established by law whereby murder prohibition applies to all human beings (Lipman 1986). It states that one cannot dispense with a life even when it is considered an inferior as it’s considered an absolute value; there is nothing like "inferior" life, or a life that is not worth living in law. Furthermore, there is a right to be free from harmful actions or unwanted actions as well. Criminal sanctions against assault and battery is seen to protect this right (Brett, Wailer & Williams 1997). It also protect against civil actions available for battery and assault. Active killing is forbidden, but so are omissions adversely affecting someone whose welfare is one's responsibility. Legally significant features in the Original Version of the scenario There are various ethically relevant features in the original version of the scenario. Janet’s conduct was legally in order since sometimes a life may be so unpleasant such that it can be recognized morally at least as an individual may be justified in not extending what amounts to unbearable and painful existence by extraordinary means that express patient wishes. It does not compel the keeping temporary alive terminally ill patients may prolong their suffering. An adult can refuse treatment necessary for the continuation of life if he understands the implications underlying the decision. In cases where someone ends his life, medical personnel are not implicated to have been involved unless they assisted him in terminating his life (Lipman 1986). It may be an offence to avail means to suicide like instruments or drugs, or even giving information related to assisting the suicide. There are also legally significant features in the alternative version of the scenario. In this case where treatment has been refused health careers question that accede to the refusal having aided is not there unless is the positive intention of health career. In simple terms the patient is entitled to do, decline to consent to treatment that may have the effect of prolonging life, of which the doctor has complied with the patient's wishes that is in accordance with the law (Gillett1995). Decision the person makes as well as the consequences of it must be fully be understood. It may appear that so long as staffs have made reasonable attempts to ensure this understanding, and voluntary refusal on the person side, the care and comfort should not amount to criminal behavior (O'Connor & Fairall 1996). There are ethically significant features of this version’s events that differ from the original version. Janet’s conduct is ethically appropriate in this version because when there is much a doctor can do in order to relieve suffering and pain, she is entitled to take the proper measures even when the measures taken can or may shorten life (Macmillan1985). The law is the same as all causes of death means nothing philosophical or technical if, for example death may occur due to the fact that a doctor has done something or failed to do something (Miller & Brody 1996). People might say the cause of death was the illness. Rejection of treatment on the basis that one personally rejects an unacceptable quality of life is recognized by law the right (McLean & Maher 1978). As such, a person is allowed to make an advance directive to reject treatment which becomes irrelevant in accordance to Legislation in several Australian jurisdictions. Regrets was expressed by Judges in Airedale and A (Children) that there is little clarification on legislative of the law with regards to withholding or withdrawing treatment where the person is not competent. It may be considered whether it is possible to develop such legislation (Land 1997). The above principles also apply to the withholding or withdrawing of life support. In all jurisdictions, except South Australia and Western Australia, death by definition is regarded as the irreversible cessation of circulation of the blood, or irreversible cessation of all function of the brain (Mendelson 1981). Queensland has this definition only for the purposes of the Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 (Old). South Australia and Western Australia require irreversible cessation of all brain function. The patient is already dead, in most States and the life support machinery may be switched off (Kerridge, Lowe & McPhee 2005). In Western Australia South and Australia one would have to rely on the principle of extraordinary care, hence decision making is much more difficult. The difference between permanent vegetative state, coma, brain death and "locked-in syndrome" must be established clearly in the minds of those who are caring for those suffering from these conditions. Before any decision to with-hold or withdraw treatment is made, all health care givers should be clear on the distinctions, and diagnosis as to which condition is present should be made as carefully as is medically possible, all of those involved being satisfied that the diagnosis is correct (Paris & Reardon 1988). Euthanasia in practical terms is considered to be an intolerable existence; it is the bringing about of the death of a person to end deliberately (Kuhse & Singer 1995). It’s either an active measure to cause death (active euthanasia) or to withhold treatment that can hasten death (passive euthanasia). The former is considered to be homicide criminal offence, while the latter is more of a problem. According to different sources it cannot be homicide because there is no act to cause the harm, but it has been established that where there is care, omission can result to criminal negligence at least as well as constitute civil negligence. Technically, euthanasia can amount to homicide either passive or active. The courts developed principles to provide relief from the harshness of such provisions, which are more of vague and difficult to apply with regards to the modern technology advancement. This has resulted in intense legal debate and calls by law reform bodies for change. The doctor or nurse taking care of terminally ill patient is not obligated to prolong his life by any means available possible, with regards to the quality of the patient's life. Common humanity requires otherwise, as this is so to medical ethics and good medical practice accepted in the country and overseas. The doctor' to make a decision on whether or not to take any such step must be critically based on patient's ability to withhold his consent meaning the decision should be made in the best interest of the patient (Lanham 1993). Regarding to this it is this principle too which influences the established rule that a doctor or nurse may dwell on, when caring for a patient who is, for example like Mrs. Jordan who was dying of cancer, lawfully pain killing drugs may be administered despite the fact that he knows that the subsequent effect of that application will be to end the life of patient's. A decision like such may be as part of the care of the living patient, in his best interests; and for this case, the treatment will be lawful (Otlowski 1992). Furthermore, where the treatment by the doctor's of his patient is lawful, the death of patient’s will be considered in law as to be caused by the disease attributed to his condition. Nursing practice is guided by a code of ethics which represents morally accepted by those within the profession. According to Ormrod (1977), nursing ethics focuses on doing good and avoiding harm, which is based on Draft Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia. Besides, its also stated in the draft that ethical violations involve the evasion of moral obligation This can be demonstrated by taking action that is not supposed to be taken as well as failing to take action that should be taken. Failing to perform orders for a well documented 'not for resuscitation' (NFR) order which is in line with institutions NFR guidelines may be seen to constitute an ethical violation (Morgan &Veitch 2004). For example where the nurse responds to her patients wishes to care for his sick wife by alerting her nursing peers of this fact, however, these is seen to be futile attempt. As guided by the Draft Code of Ethics for nurses in Australia, the failure by the nurse to clarify accordingly the NFR order with the doctor who prescribes may be seen as an ethical violation for the nurse or her peers who are failing to take action that should be taken. The Draft Code of ethics for Nurses also states that an ethical problem may arise in case where the moral cause of action that is not clear but is precluded by circumstances from doing either. All health care institutions should document the Resuscitation guidelines that are critical in to guide decisions of legal manner, an ethical and professional (Lipman 1986). Not for resuscitation orders should be an individual one, where by the view must be in favor on the side of those working on individual patient as well as immediate relatives and care givers. If incase there is conscientious objection to carrying out a NFR order by the health care staff, abstain from caring for the patient should be permitted. In this case NFR orders must be documented and communicated to all concerned parties, and this should be reviewed at regular intervals by patients request. To rectify the ethical stance that 'problems exist with current NFR orders' as well as provide a vehicle to guide a moral decision making process can be addressed by adopting of these simple guidelines within health care institutions (Mendelson 1995). Conclusion All said, it does not mean that there is any special defense for the medical personnel. The law applies to all and none is immune to it. There is no act that is murder if it does not cause death. A doctor needs to do all that is necessary and proper to relieve suffering and pain even if the measures taken may incidentally shorten life. No act is murder if does not cause death. However, medical practitioners are expected to act under the guidance of the professional ethics of conduct to ensure that every action undertaken is at the patient’s best interest. As such, practitioners are exempted from legal implications of deaths that would result without the medical professional intentionally acting in a manner so as to assist a client end his or her life. This means that healthcare professionals are expected to act and make decision that represent the patient’s best interests. Reference List Gillett, G. 1995, "Ethical aspects of the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation", Journalof Low and Medicine, p.p. 145-152. Kerridge, I., Lowe, M. & McPhee, J. 2005, Ethics and low for the health professions, 2nd edn, Federation Press, Sydney. Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. 1995, "Active voluntary euthanasia: morality and the law" Journal of Low and Medicine, p.p. 129-135. Land, W.C.R. 1997, Brett, Wailer and Williams criminal law, 8th edn, Butterworths, Australia. Lanham, D. 1993, Taming death by law, Longman Professional Publishing, Melbourne. Lipman, Z. 1986, "The criminal liability of medical practitioners for withholding treatment from severely defective newborn infants", Australian Low Journal, p.p. 286, Wailer. Lipman, Z. 1986, "The criminal liability of medical practitioners for withholding treatment from severely defective newborn infants", Australian Low Journal, p.p. 286. Macmillan, E. 1985, "Birth defective infants: a standard for non-treatment decisions" Stanford Law Review p.p. 595. McLean, S. & and Maher, G. 1978, Medicine, morals and the law, Gower Publishing, Hampshire. Mendelson, D. 1995, "The Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation in historical perspective", Journal of Law and Medicine, p.p. 136-145. Mendelson, D. 1999, "End of life-legal framework" in Freckelton, I. & Petersen P. Controversies in health law, Federation Press, Sydney. Meyers, D. 1981, medica-legal implications of death and dying, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, San Francisco. Miller, F. & Brody, H. 1996, "Professional integrity and physician-assisted death" Monash Bioethics Review p.p. 41. Morgan, D. & Veitch, K. 2004, "Being Ms B: B, autonomy and the nature of legal regulation", Sydney Law Review, p.p. 107. O'Connor, D. & Fairall, P. 1996, Criminal defences, Butterworths, Sydney. Ormrod, L. J. 1977, "A lawyer looks at medical ethics", 45 (Pt 4) Medica-Legal Journal, p.p. 104. Otlowski, M. 1992, Active voluntary euthanasia: a timely reappraisal, University of Tasmania Law School Occasional Paper, University ofTasmania Hobart. Paris, J. & Reardon, F. 1988, "Court responses to withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and fluids", Journal of the American Medical Association, 2243, p.p. 253, no 15. Read More