In your Discussion assignments, you are free to discuss any idea, argument, or issue related this module’s content that piques your interest or about which you have something you want to say. Objective The purpose of this assignment is for you to discuss your own thoughts and reflections on this module’s content, and those of your peers, in a productive manner. Instructions Read The content for this module. The posts and comments of your peers. Reflect In your reading of this material, were there any ethical claims or arguments that stood out to you as unclear, unpersuasive, or even completely wrong? How about profound, deeply insightful, or obviously correct? If so, reflect on why and try to articulate the reasons behind your reactions. Critique these reactions: if a claim or argument seemed to you obviously incorrect, try to understand why a smart person would make and defend it; if obviously correct, try to think of good reasons to doubt it. Compose Write a response in which you discuss your conclusions and reflections from above and post your work to the discussion board by clicking “reply” below, or underneath the post or comment of a peer. Make sure to use specific details from the course content in your contributions. Engage Keep an eye on this forum and respond to any feedback of your peers in a respectful and thoughtful manner. You should acknowledge feedback even if you are not going to provide a substantive response. You may participate in this Discussion by leaving a top-level post or by commenting on the posts or comments of your peers. Possible Discussion Questions Although you are free to discuss any issue related to this module’s content, you may instead choose to reflect on one of the following discussion questions and share your ideas and conclusions in the form of a top-level post. These questions may not directly reference the course content, but your answers should be explained with reference to or in contrast with that material. Do you think there is a significant moral difference between withholding treatment (an omission) and withdrawing treatment (an act) in the case that each of these lead to the patient’s death? Why? (See Section 2) In Section 3 the authors state: “Some philosophers think that there is a fundamental conceptual problem with honouring an advance directive, since the doctor seems to be dealing with two different patients: the competent one who made the directive, and the incompetent one they find before them now.” What do they mean by this, and do you agree? Why? Do you think the best interests or substituted judgment standard is more appropriate for use in making treatment decisions for incompetent patients (who did not express their wishes beforehand). Why? (See Section 4) Is there a significant moral difference between causing the death of a patient as a foreseeable side-effect of a treatment or action and directly and intentionally causing the death of a patient? Why? (See Section 5) Check Your Work Ask yourself these questions to determine whether your work is ready to submit: Are my contributions substantive, informed, thoughtful, constructive, respectful, and academic? Have I been respectful to all involved in the way I discussed my ideas and the ideas of others?
DISCUSSION POST NEED TO REPLY
There is definitely a difference between intentionally causing patient death and having death as a foreseeable side effect. The difference lies within the goal and intention of care. As healthcare providers, we want to provide the best care for our patients, and sometimes the best thing we can do for our patients is to try and keep them comfortable. Assisted suicide isnt yet legal everywhere and although Im not against it, I feel that if it is the true intention of treatment that it should be stated as such. If the intention is to provide comfort and ease suffering until nature runs its course, even if it leads to a quicker death, that should be clear. If the intention is to simply end the patient’s suffering and aid them in a quick painless death then that too should be direct. From a moral stance, I can see how intentionally causing death could be viewed as a bad thing and looked down upon. Even though both actions may result in early death, I feel that having death as a potential side effect is easier to defend and more morally acceptable due to the intention to minimize suffering. The principle of double effect is useful for determining if the good of the treatment outweighs the risks, but it lacks in the sense that it always considers death as a negative outcome. For some patients, death is inevitably nearing and relief from suffering. These patients deserve to die with dignity if they so choose and from their perspective death is considered a positive outcome. Although there is a moral difference between these actions, I believe that as long as the patient’s best interests and wants are considered neither action is morally wrong.
REFERENCES:
https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/detail/63
https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/detail/81 https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/detail/61
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/262588-bitter-end
