Debate outline - Research Paper Example

Debate Outline I. Introduction a. Pro side The issue Team D will debate is Extending Life versus Prolonging Death. Advancements in clinical technology had ensured better chance of medical survival, and in probable terms, the extension of life through innovative life-support measure available in clinical settings. In such appeal, the ultimate decision to continue with medical prolongation of patients’ lives seemed to lie on the shoulder of three relevant entities: involved health professionals, support groups from direct families, and religious representatives from chaplains--where opinions can be diverse as each hold different values in the decision-making process of extending patients’ lives.

The ethical dilemma for the medical profession and the family of the afflicted individual give rise to ongoing debates. Both sides present strong arguments for their side. II. Facts for Pro and Con side a. Pro side-Seven facts to support the Pro side of the debate In more ways, the aging group is more susceptible to developing clinical conditions that require extensive hospitalization, as most present protracted medical status; however, the exact pathophysiological path towards worsening condition remained indefinable (Kaufman, 2009).

As such, clinical practitioners may try a number of treatment procedures with vague clinical presentation, possibly even during critical times in patient status, but these measures may remain in futile attempts as they do not target the exact cause of geriatric condition. In most cases, the education and vast clinical experiences that health professionals have acquired in academic and clinical settings do not assure that they are no longer liable to make clinical errors, especially on the side of the “omnipotent” physicians in predicting the outcomes of patients’ condition and course of disease process.

As each one has individualized reaction to certain pathological conditions, outcome prognosis on the length of survival and type of life to be led could also differ, showing that medical practitioners are not always as knowledgeable as most have lead people to believe. In relative terms, nurses are said to adapt a more nonconstructive view on the futility of medical treatment, as they have direct contact with patients, and are privy to the extent of physiological wasting as time pass by (McDermid & Bagshaw, 2009).

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” Article 6.1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The ongoing debate exists on whether life-support measures can indeed be instrumental in saving the life of patients in intensive care unit, especially most medical practitioners rely on such medical support systems in projecting better patient outcomes. As such, this did not differentiate whether such measures denote full medical recovery or mere prolongation of life, in the midst of patient’s struggles and physiological sufferings. III. Supporting comments a.

Pro side-Supporting comments for the Pro side of the debate The extension of life should consistently be prioritized for this is the sole concept that dispels negativity brought by unnecessary at earlier times than expected, especially since health promotion in current health care systems emphasized early detection and treatment of conditions, preventing further clinical struggles and subsequent suffering. It is a common practice for family members to continually deny the extent of patient’s critical condition, opting for continuous treatment and technical support in assuring that their sick family member is still not lost to them.

As such, every available health measure for survival is adhered, utilizing every resource available for the glimpse of hope that their patients may have the opportunity to extend their life, even to the point of disregarding the patients’ struggles in the process. IV. Questions to be answered in the final presentation a. Pro side How does one determine that the life of a patient is no longer sufficiently precious to take all actions within his or her power to prolong that life? In a country that supposedly boasts the best health care in the world, why do patients still suffer undesirable, “bad,” technology-driven deaths?

How is rapidly changing health care science and technology affecting the nature of the discussion regarding prolonging life? Can survival and outcome be predicted? Are withdrawing and withholding therapies always morally equivalent? How do we withdraw or withhold life sustaining therapy? IV. Conclusion References Kaufman, S. R. (2006). Prolonging life or death? …And a time to die: how American hospitals shape the end of life. Retrieved from the http://www.ucsf.edu/alumni/pdf/MedMagFall05FINAL.

pdf McDermid, R. C., & Bagshaw, S. M. (2009). Prolonging life and delaying death: The role of physician in the context of limited intensive care resources. Retrieved from http://www.peh-med.com/content/4/1/3 Right to liberty and security of person. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.unfa.org/rights/language/right8.htm Wainwright, P., & Gallagher, A (2007). Ethical aspects of withdrawing and withholding treatment. Nursing Standard, 21 (33), 46-51.