Advances in Medicine for Prolonging Life or Death - Research Paper Example

Advances in Medicine Advances in Medicine Medical advances that a majority of Americans perceive as life-prolonging are frequentlydeath-prolonging, leading to complex treatment decisions during times of crisis (Paulson, 2013). Today, over 120,000 Americans, are being forced to stay alive through dialysis units, which draw off a patients blood, clean it and take it back to the body at a set rate, chemical composition and temperature (Corke, 2010). A majority of individuals think of death as the worst ever outcome for a patient, especially those who are terminally ill. Evelyn, a patient sponsor at a nonprofit organization, Compassion & Choices, argues that prolonging the death of a patient can be a far worse fate (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). For a number of patients, hospice care or good palliative can ease suffering, yet a minute but important percentage of dying patients suffer painfully. Nobody makes the choice of prolonging life or prolonging death, not unless the weight of living has so constantly, day in, day out, overshadowed all benefit (Corke, 2010). People who believe that they want to be capable of, for example, taking a lethal amount of drugs or any injection to end their life — they consider that that is the way they are going to feel, but they, in reality, do not know the way they are going to feel when they reach the level where their life’s quality is so reduced that they wish they were already dead that they would sleep and not see the following day (Paulson, 2013). However, to gain that step, to take that ultimate step to decide your own death in a dramatic act is extremely hard, and a majority of people cannot do that (Corke, 2010). This paper will discuss this dilemma (prolonging life or prolonging death) and conclude which is more significant than the other. The moral principles beneficence, autonomy and non-maleficence have changed the medicine practice from a mainly paternalistic loom towards a system of shared/mutual decision making (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). Idyllically, this takes place through mutual understanding, a wait-and-see method and thoughtful paternalism. In important matters, doctors should partake in this procedure with full honesty, recognizing their own biases and restrictions with regards to prognosticating (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). The Oregon Death with Dignity decree has been in existence for over a decade now, and the main grounds for patients requesting their doctor for this direction have remained the same over that period (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). It is not regarding pain because pain can even be managed (Corke, 2010). People hasten their death for the reason that they cannot be able to accomplish any of the things, which they have always being enjoying doing — that offer them any sort of pleasure. They cannot do those things any longer, and they also have a total loss of independence (Corke, 2010). They become reliant on other individuals to take care for them, and they believe that they have lost all self-respect. This does not matter for everyone, but for those individuals that it does seem significant, it matters strongly (Paulson, 2013). This is, in reality, what they think of as somewhat existential sorrow; the worthless of having just to wait on this death to take place. I consider this as a reassuring position to assume, but it does not really address the nature of anguish, and it does not address a patients desire to be treated with respect and also to be heard. Critics talk about the moral principles of beneficence, as well as non-maleficence, that death is considered the worst ever outcome, which must be barred at all costs (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). However, this can be disputed as there are numerous people for whom death is not the most horrible thing that could occur to them (Corke, 2010). In reality, prolonging their dying is the most terrible thing, which could occur to them, and the idea of healing in that environment hits me as a bit of a biased interpretation of the relationship. Panelists working in social, legal, as well as spiritual fields of death, approved that largely futile and costly medical care at the end of life frequently stem from families failure to talk about their wishes (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). This hush results from the fear of dying, which has contaminated American people of the 21st century. It is a cultural dilemma articulated by a no-wait fascination in hospital ERs and the thought of people’s right and freedom to be free of any kind of suffering, which can overwork intensive care departments (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). Rather than valuing natural death, humans have medicalized what is, in my opinion, a spiritual truth. With the average life expectancy rate increasing from age 46 in 2000’s to the late-80s today, this concern has particular significance in a region where almost a third of the inhabitants are over 65 years (Corke, 2010). Two-thirds of deaths in American are lengthy affairs, interrupted by hospitalizations and almost 70% of Americans will spend their last days in the intensive care unit. Family members frequently drive the verdict to maintain the treating than dying. Over one million nursing home dwellers use feeding tubes in the United States even if this method was never meant to be an everlasting life-support measure. 6 out of 10 Americans die lacking a will, and even much fewer individuals have advance orders to explain their wishes (Corke, 2010). Every year, 15% of the dialysis patients pass away, some from other conditions. However, a Minneapolis survey of nearly 1,766 dialysis patients from 1966 to 1983 discovered that the intentional terminating of treatment caused 22% of those deaths. The official cause is normally natural causes (Corke, 2010). Due to increasing patients on dialysis, removal of treatment will perhaps become more widespread in the future. Kidney transplants are hardly ever an alternative for the elderly. There are numerous situations where fighting to stay alive is absolutely an option, but are also numerous circumstances where prolonging the fight is similar to suffering. Patients with terminal sicknesses succumb to toxic treatments, which destroy their bodies (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). One consequence might be that prospects for recovery from serious illness have also become very high. Furthermore, higher numbers of patients are losing their lives in intensive care units after receiving extended durations of life-prolonging therapy (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). In this also lies the rising crisis – critical care therapy should be available in an appropriate fashion for those who need it immediately, yet its provision is mainly reliant on a limited availability of both human resources and capital (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). Physicians are frequently put in a challenging conflict of interest through pressures to utilize health resources carefully while also promoting the fair and appropriate access to care therapy (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009). For sure, the medicine and technology that has been developed will save people from themselves. Acknowledging death as an element of life does not imply that people give up; it means they gave in and acknowledge it as a natural element of their life. You cannot pick your time to die, but you can, at times, select an improved way out (Corke, 2010). There is just so much that can be performed to help sustain life in the closing days or months. After the events become unreasonable, perhaps the best move to make is staying calm. Allow your loved ones to express their love rather than having them powerlessly watch (Paulson, 2013). I do not believe dying is the most awful thing that can occur to a person, but dying without self-respect is. References Corke, C. (2010). Saving life ... or prolonging death. York, UK: Erudite Medical Books. McDermid, R. C., & Bagshaw, S. M. (2009). Prolonging life and delaying death: The role of physicians in the context of limited intensive care resources. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 4(3), 4-11. Paulson, S. (2013). Prolonging life: legal, ethical, and social dilemmas. New York: Nour Foundation. Read More