part of their care If active euthanasia is restricted to cases in which its

Part of their care if active euthanasia is restricted

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 12 pages.

part of their care-If active euthanasia is restricted to cases in which it’s truly voluntary, then no patient should fear getting it unless she or he has voluntarily requested it; patients’ trust of their physicians could be increased, not eroded, by knowledge that physicians will provide aid indying when patients seek it-Brock suggested that two principal values (respecting patients’ self-determination and promoting their well-being) underlie the consensus that competent patients, or the surrogates of incompetent patients, are entitled to refuse any life-sustaining treatment and to choose from among available alternative treatments-A second bad consequence that some foresee is that permitting euthanasia would weaken society’s commitment to provide optimal care for dying patientsoIf euthanasia is seen as a cheaper alternative to adequate care and treatment, then we might become less scrupulous about providing sometimes costly support and other services to dying peopleoWe should do nothing to weaken the frail, elderly, and dying patients’ ability to obtain adequate care and services-There are at least two reasons for skepticism about the second argument:o(1) The same worry could have been directed at recognizing patients’ or surrogates’rights to forgo life-sustaining treatment, yet there’s no persuasive evidence that recognizing the right to refuse treatment has caused a serious erosion in the qualityof care of dying patients
Background image
PHLB09Chapter 10 Zainab Alio(2) Only a very small proportion of deaths would occur from euthanasia if it were permitted-Permitting euthanasia shouldn’t diminish people’s commitment and concern to maintain and improve the care of these patients-A third possible bad consequence is to threaten the progress made in securing the rights of patients or their surrogates to decide about and to refuse life-sustaining treatmentoAn important reassurance to concerns about how the authority to take steps ending life might be misused, abused, or wrongly extended-Public policy in the last fifteen years has generally let life-sustaining treatment decisions be made in health care settings between physicians and patients or their surrogates, and without the involvement of the courtsoIf euthanasia is made legally permissible greater involvement of the courts is likely, which could in turn extend to a greater court involved in life-sustaining treatment decisionsMost believe that greater involvement of the courts in these decisions would be undesirable, as it would make sound decision-making more cumbersome and difficult without sufficient compensating benefits-The legal rights of competent patients and, to a lesser degree, surrogates of incompetent patients to decide about treatment are very firmly embedded in a long line of informed consent and life-sustaining treatment cases, and are not likely to be eroded by a debate over, or even acceptance of, euthanasia-The fourth potential bad consequence of permitting euthanasia ahs been developed by
Background image
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 12 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Horne
  • Ethics, active euthanasia, Zainab Ali

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes