Hippocratic Oath

"The moral formula of almsgiving is one of the time-honoured ethical foundations of medical practice. . . this involves using specialise medical knowledge to advise patients with regard to their health; that is, doctors argon morally obligated to act for the good of their patients" (Rogers 1999 388). What this implies, in umpteen cases of terminally ill patients, is that the doctor becomes "paternal"- that is, he has to gather in decisions for the patient (sometimes with or without family's knowledge or approval).

Death with hauteur crosses ethical lines, from time to time. We have seen many cases- and non and Dr. Kevorkian's - where terminally ill, suffering patients ask for a way out, to shit them a last opportunity not to die in pain and agony. In some cases, doctors have over-medicated, perhaps tending(p) too-strong a sedative which induces a coma and eventual finale without the patient feeling anything. But, when a dying patient slips in and out of consciousness, what choice do doctors have for some crystallize of "informed consent" to stop nutrition, water, or other life-giving stimulants. "Should they wake her up, or should they compensate treatment decisions on her behalf?" (Elger & Chevrolet 2000 18). The principle of autonomy clearly dictates that the patient should

Allmark, P. (2002). Death with dignity" London UK: Journal of aesculapian Ethics, vol. 28, electrical outlet 4, pp 255-257.

From the medical profession's point of view, the ethical and moral plights they often eccentric are moving away from the traditional concept of constantly saving a life, if at all possible. "The prohibition of killing, it is said, does not entail that the physician must al ways preserve a life. While physicians must not intentionally cut curt a patient's life, or engage in acts of euthanasia, they may sometimes, to a lower place the principle of double effect - act in ways that will foreseeably but non-intentionally cause death" (Kuhse 2002 271) .

We know that physicians are not God, and often decline to act as His surrogate.

However, granted a point of no return, it would only be attractive of a person to make an autonomous request- or bequest- to the highest degree being allowed a dignified, pain-free death? The real dilemma is: "Does it make much of a differenceawhether one causes or just now hastens death?" (Perkin 2002 164).

Of course, in the cases where physicians are literally forced to make a moral, ethical, and ultimately medical decision, they then are go about with alternatives: dehydration, removal of tube-feeding, or over-sedation.

Kuhse, H. (2000). "The agony of trying to match sanctity of life and political-centered medical care" London UK: Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 28, issue 4, pp 270-272.

Elger, B.S. and Chevrolet, J-C. (2000). Beneficence today-or autonomy tomorrow?" Hastings-on-Hudson NY: The Hastings revolve about Report, vol. 30, issue 1, pp 18-19.

(Cantor 2001 183). However, what is not clear, generally, is the difference between addressing a fatal dose of sedatives and merely withdrawing life-giving nutritive or eupneic sustenance. It is easy, on the one hand, to merely let nature dish out its course by removing artificial tubes, etc. It is another to administer a death-providing medication. For a family member who has the ultimate de
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.