Date of publication: 2017-08-29 05:34
Only AMA can tell what they exactly mean by their statement. I feel that AMA’s statement has been vaguely written. They were not able to provide exact and specific definitions of the words they used. I couldn’t blame Rachels and Steinbock for arriving at very different interpretations of AMA’s statement. But if I need to give out my personal opinion on this subject, I’d go with Steinbock’s interpretation. I don’t think AMA would want their statement interpreted like what Rachels did. Because if that’s the case, then the two sentences in the above statement are obviously not consistent.
Extraordinary treatments are those painful treatments but with very little chance of success. It is a requirement to provide patients with ordinary care, failing to do so is neglect of responsibility or homicide. If a patient has requested not to receive these extraordinary treatments, the doctors are left with no option but to follow. Not providing extraordinary treatment is not punishable. Rachels’ and Steinbock’s interpretations are well founded upon, and thus have their own strong points. I don’t think I am in the best position to tell who have the most accurate interpretation of AMA’s statement.
Therefore, there’s also no major difference between active and passive euthanasia. In fact, active euthanasia is more humane at some times because it lessens the time of the patient’s pain and suffering. If you let the person die, he may suffer for a few days, but if you administer lethal injection on that patient, he will only experience the pain for a few minutes. Bonnie Steinbock challenges Rachels interpretation of the AMA statement. Steinbock says that AMA , in providing that statement, thoroughly rejects all forms of euthanasia.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is an issue that has been included in public debates for decades now. This is due to the morality of the issue and when it can be regarded as acceptable or not. Euthanasia is the act
What would you consider euthanasia? Can it be a peaceful death, a suicide, or a murder? Euthanasia is “…the intentional killing by the act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit” (“Euthanasia. com” Online).
Euthanasia is a term that originated from the Greek language: eu meaning 8775 good 8776 and thanatos meaning 8775 death 8776 . Generally, euthanasia implies the intentional termination of life that is initiated by a person who wishes to commit suicide. However, euthanasia has many
Rachel dreads her father&apos s sermons, having heard them numerous times. All of Rachel&apos s sisters know Bible passages by heart because her father&apos s favorite punishment requires them to copy pages of verses. Rachel has a vain personality, but most sixteen year olds that come from an undiverse background do. Still, Rachel&apos s
Is euthanasia, or assisted suicide, humane? Should it be accepted in the medical world? Euthanasia is a very serious ethical dilemma faced in modern health care. Euthanasia is mostly a matter of opinion, and has different meanings to different people.
small children lived nude while the women went topless. Rachel&apos s father also had concerns about African nudity more than the activities of the welcome service, when the people invited him to offer thanks for the meal, he launched into a Biblical tirade on nakedness. Rachel agreed the nudity had use at that place and time. The reception quickly broke into a meeting of silent people and women wrapped sarongs around themselves and served bowls of the goat stew. Rachel wanted to gag and spit the substance out, but her mother threaten to thrash them within an inch of their lives if the Price children did not eat the meal.
Examples of this include not providing the patient with artificial life sustaining device if there’s no chance that person would recover from the ailment. Rachels argues that if passive euthanasia is sometimes permissible, then active euthanasia should also be. There’s no difference in killing somebody and letting somebody die. A good example given is one person drowns a child in a tub while in the other scenario, a person just watches the child drown. There’s no difference between the two scenarios except that one killed the child while the other just let the child die.
8775 The third night that I roomed with Jack in our tiny double room, in the solid-tumor ward of the cancer clinic of the National Institute of Health in Maryland, a terrible thought occurred to me. Jack had a melanoma in his belly, a
The American Medical Associate (AMA) released a statement which gets several philosophers and medical practitioners thinking: The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another-mercy killing is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the lie of the body when these is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and his immediate family.
There’s no exception to that. However, when the patient has given their consent to the withholding of a treatment, then that is already a different situation. It is not anymore considered euthanasia. Steinbock argues that not all the time when a treatment is withhold, the intention is to terminate the patient’s life. There are some cases when the administration of the treatment itself causes more pain than the ailment. Steinbock provided an example wherein cancer treatment produces more suffering than the cancer itself.