Killing vs Letting Die

In a paper entitled Why Does Removing Machines cast as Passive Euthanasia? Dr. Patrick D. Hopkins argues that the removal of a machine which substitutes for a failed vital organ is equivalent to removing that flavor-sustaining organ.( Killing 2004 p. 1). In this scenario, removing a breathing machine such as BiPap that essentially breathes for the diligent when they atomic number 18 unable to breathe for themselves, would be tantamount to removing the patients lung in order to stop him from breathing. The ground becomes a little shaky if we trust on this theory the patient or surrogate making decisions for the patient, when confronted with a terminally ill medical situation, asks that all life-support machines and victualsing tubes be removed. Is the doctor or nurse who performs this act of mercy killing the patient, or just removing artificial means of life and letting go on? irrelevant Dr. Hopkins, I dont feel that pulling the plug, or ceasing life support machines is equal in any way to cutting egress a vital organ. I believe letting congest is a morally responsible act, while actively killing is quite some other matter.Many raft make a distinction between passive mercy killing and active euthanasia. While the AMA maintains that people possess a right to die with dignity, and believe it morally permissible, for a physician to allow the death of a soulfulness who is suffering unmercifully and has an incurable disease, they argon unwilling to soft touch active euthanasia for a person who is in similar straits, precisely who has the misfortune non to be suffering from an illness that will bequeath in a speedy death. (Tooley 2006 p. 1). Therefore, while a patient expertness have a terminal illness and be in fundamental pain, if the illness is non likely to kill them fairly quickly, euthanasia is not an option, rather they are required to suffer for a lengthy form of time before receiving assistance in ending their lives.This becomes a really touchy moral issue, with passionate arguments on both sides. The motives of a person who intentionally kills some mavin is surely more evil than the motives of a person who lets someone die, most especially if the motives for letting that person die are purely non-selfish and a result of empathy for the persons pain. Watching a loved one die slowly and painfully is a blow on those who love them as well as the person themselves. When a beloved member of your family is begging you to let them go, how stern it be morally wrong to grant that wish?In the realm of withholding interference versus withdrawing sermon, the consensus seems to be that if withholding treatment can be justified, thusly withdrawing it can be justified by the same criteria. (Jennings 2001 p. 2). The reality is that while administering treatment that may, in fact, have to be later withdrawn buys time in the sense that the physician is able come to a solid medical prognosis of the patients chances for survival, many ethicists feel that it is easier to justify not starting signal treatment. (Jennings 2001 p. 2). So, while administering treatment may allow the doctor, patient and family members time to absorb the reality of the imminent death of a loved one, doctors are indecisive to administer treatment that they are fairly certain will have to be withdrawn somewhere d take the line, and find it easier to let record take its course in the first place.Life sustaining treatments are considered to be mechanical ventilation, dialysis, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, antibiotics, transfusions, maintenance and hydration. While most of us are relatively okay with the idea of withdrawing (or not administering in the first place) the mechanical ventilation, dialysis, or performing CPR, we are less okay with the idea of removing a feeding tube and ivs or not administering antibiotics.We fit these acts in some sense as starving our loved one to death, or making them do without water, and we see this more as agony than assisting an inevitable death. The fact is that dehydration can produce a tranquilizing effect on the brain, making the dying process more tolerable, so essentially it is an issue in our minds rather than one based on reality. Technically it is all the same if a person is unable to feed themselves in the traditional way, or drink a glass of water, then feeding tubes and IVs are artificial means of property a person alive. However, if we were to disallow these basic medical care issues, many, many, people who go on to live happy, productive lives, would surely die.The question becomes to what degree are we good with measures to sustain life? Many times rest measures are determined to be the most solid course, and, in general, family members are much more agreeable to allowing a loved one to die provided they are still administered IVs, feeding tubes and pain medication.Extraordinary measures may in some cases be determined by the level of techno logical complexity, besides this can be misleading. Certain procedures for providing artificial nutrition and hydration, for example, are technologically rather complex, whereas administering chemotherapy is not. (Policy 2006 p. 3). Therefore, we cannot say that administering chemotherapy is a rather simple procedure, therefore altogether an ordinary means of treatment while the complex artificial nutrition system must then be extraordinary. There must, therefore, be an judicial decision of the benefits and burdens for the patient that each procedure or treatment provides. (Policy 2006 p. 3).CPR is generally use to restore breathing capabilities to someone whose breathing has been interrupted for whatever reason. Because resuscitation has no value in the management of terminal diseases, only is rather mean to return a person in a health crisis to a normal healthy state, CPR, while certainly an extraordinary, live-saving measure, is not a performer in a terminally ill patient. Mechanical ventilation may be ethically removed from a terminally ill patient at their request, just as blood transfusions may be refused by the patient who is terminally ill.Tony debonnaire was a victim of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster when football game fans were crushed and 95 people died. Tony survived but was in a lethargy that doctors believed he would never emerge from. (Tony Bland 2006 p. 1). Tony could breathe on his own and all his vital organs functioned normally on his own. He could raise food but could not feed himself, so was put on feeding tubes.Because we dont consider food and water medicine, but rather basic necessities to stay alive, the feeding tube for Tony Bland could not be considered treatment, and because Mr. Bland was not actually dying at the time, his food and fluids would have had to be withdrawn in order for him to die. The courts ordered, after quadruple years of Mr. Bland being in a permanent vegetative state, that the fluids and feeding tubes be removed, and he be allowed to die, a process that took almost two weeks as well as causing the suffering of his family. (Tony Bland 2006 p. 2).The issue of medical euthanasia is one that will be debated turbulently for many years to come, with ethical arguments on both sides.Works CitedJennings, Bruce (February 2001). Medical moral philosophy and Clinical Practice. Retrieved onMay 29, 2006 fromhttp//www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071269Killing vs. allow Die (June 13, 2004). Should Removal of Mechanical Life SupportMachine at the Request of a Patient be Considered Killing or allow the PatientDie? Retrieved May 30, 2006 fromhttp//www.hsc.usc.edu/mbernste/ethics.killingvs.lettingdie.htmlPolicy (2006). Policy on Forgoing Life Sustaining or Death-Prolonging Therapy.Retrieved on May 30, 2006 fromhttp//www.clevelandclinic.org/bioethics/policies/policyonlifesustaining/ccfcode.htmlTony Bland. (2006). Tony Bland and PVS Euthanasia. Retrieved June 1, 2006 fromhttp//w ww.spucscotland.org/education/students/euthanasia/tonyblandpvs.html.Tooley, Michael (2006). An Irrevelant Consideration Killing versus Letting Die.Retrieved May 30, 2006 fromhttp//www.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/DeathandDylingTEXT/Tooley