Euthanasia Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges

Euthanasia Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges Introduction Cases of euthanasia have persisted in the American judicial system, and this is a major challenge the states are facing. Though, those who believe in the patients’ autonomy and sympathize with them actually find it hard to accept the reality that legalizing euthanasia poses a lot of danger to many people’s rights and welfare.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More It is a controversial debate to argue that there are certain rights linked to euthanasia whose denial can lead to application of liberty-limiting principles. Therefore, sound judicial policies are necessary in tackling this issue. Instead of leaving patients under the agony of extreme pain and suffering, positive clinical reforms as well as social reforms are necessary. Terminal Sedation Terminal sedation is morally right since the patient consents to it be fore its execution, and it is a method of letting the terminally ill patients die rather than killing them directly. This same argument can as well be supported by the fact that physicians have the moral duty to let their patients die peacefully and to relive them from pain and suffering. Besides, in most cases where duties conflict, it is the patients’ desires which are left as the deciding factors (Quill 474). Terminal sedation involves administering high sedative doses so as to relieve the patient from severe physical distress and it makes him/her unconscious till death (Quill 475). In fact, termination sedation is allowed in cases whereby it is the only means to relieve the patient’s suffering. Under such circumstances, it is neither immoral nor unethical and the doctor is at liberty to administer high doses of sedatives to the terminally ill patient. Contrary to euthanasia, terminal sedation can be regarded as a way of letting terminally ill patients die. However, euthanasia can be regarded as direct killing because the doctors administer lethal injections and drugs to the patients. Holding to the view that terminal sedation is morally permissible should not stop someone from debating the permissibility of euthanasia since the intention of carrying out â€Å"mercy killing† is based on the patient’s consent with an aim to relieve him/her from incurable suffering (Rietjens 6). In order to understand moral and ethical controversies surrounding terminal sedation, it is necessary to agree to the fact that a person can engage in an action that is morally permissible, but he/she is still morally blamed for it. For example, a physician who carries out terminal sedation, an act that is morally permissible, is still morally blamed.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This is rather awkward since physicians have good intentions towards p atients, and that is why at times they engage in activities which relieve the patients’ suffering. For instance, a terminal cancer patient whose lung is failing has been on the respirator for a long time, undergoing extreme pain and suffering might request the physician in charge to remove him from the discomfort of respirator. In this case it would be morally permissible for the doctor to respect the patient’s decision not to be put back under the discomfort of the respirator. The doctor might as well get tired with the patient’s persistence to be removed from the respirator, and decides to respect his/her wishes. In this case, the physician’s actions are still morally right, not because he/she was tired of dealing with the patient, but it is morally permissible to remove life support from a terminally ill patient who wants to die. Indeed, it is unethical and morally wrong to prolong life of those terminally ill patients who want to die (Rietjens 2). The McAfee case Focusing on this case, it is not always important to exercise the right to end life since there can be other ways to make life more comfortable and worth living. McAfee depended on ventilator for quite long after the motorcycle accident, a situation that made him seek an appeal from the law court to be allowed to exercise the right to stop treatment. His case gained a lot of publicity and many people came to offer him support services that improved his life and encouraged him to continue living (PBS Local Station 1). In fact, McAfee did not exercise his right to stop treatment. Therefore, it is important at times to let people die naturally. Though, it is important to tackle issues of patients assisted suicide and euthanasia from the clinical perspective, it is also important to analyze the social aspects (PBS Local Station 1). DWDA and the Ashcroft to it (rejected by the Supreme Court) The Supreme Court made a ruling that rejected the constitutional right of a patient engaging in euthanasia or patient assisted suicide (PAS). This would indeed intensify the debate on euthanasia and patient assisted suicide owing to the fact that the patients themselves strongly believe that they have liberty to terminate their life when undergoing extreme pain and suffering (Rietjens 4). In Oregon’s case, it was argued whether Oregon had some rights towards allowing doctors to carry out patient assisted suicide (PAS) to those patients who were terminally ill (Oregon Public Health 1).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Euthanasia: Moral Issues and Clinical Challenges specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to Ashcroft, it was illegitimate for Oregon doctors to administer drugs that help the terminally ill patients die (Oregon Public Health 1). However, terminally ill patients strongly believed that it was morally right for them to die peacefully, than undergoing through the most terrible pai n and suffering during their last days. Therefore, revoking Oregon doctors’ licenses for having prescribed drugs for euthanasia was a form of infringement to the patients’ right and liberty to die peacefully. This action taken by the Attorney General to revoke the doctors’ licenses, made Oregon to sue the administration for having overstepped its powers since it was not the right body to regulate the US medical practice (Rietjens 3). Oregon doctors found it inappropriate to be stopped from carrying out patient assisted suicide, arguing that it was neither unethical nor immoral act since it was the patients’ morality. The doctors also argued that killing patients is unethical, morally wrong and is not one of the medical purposes. The supporters of Ashcroft dismissed Oregon’s practice as bad medicine since it interferes with the human dignity. Though, on the patients’ side, it is not a question of ethics and morality since they strongly believ e that they have the right to die peacefully, and not necessarily going through excruciating pain and suffering. On the other hand, the doctors believe in good medical practice, and making the terminally ill patients die peacefully is not a bad medicine. Therefore, any law that rejects euthanasia is a bad one because it denies the patients the right and the liberty to die peacefully (PBS Local Station 1). In sum, it is both morally and ethically permissible to carry out euthanasia and patient assisted suicide (PAS). However, we should not always grant people the right and liberty to end life, as witnessed in the McAfee case. In addition, it has been witnessed that legal challenges are some of the liberty-limiting principles used when the rights to end life are denied. These two areas try to overlap since the right to life is legally enshrined in the constitution. However, moral issues and clinical challenges play some crucial roles in analyzing euthanasia, patient assisted suicide ( PAS) and sedative termination. Therefore, in most cases a patient who refuses medicine and wants to die should have his/her will respected, especially those suffering from terminal illnesses. Oregon Public Health. Death with Dignity Act. Public Health, n.d. Web.Advertising Looking for essay on ethics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More PBS Local Station. Oregons Assisted Suicide Case. Pbs News Hour, 05 Oct. 2005. Web. Quill, Timothy. â€Å"Death and Dignity: A case of Individualized Decision Making†. New England Journal of Medicine 324.10 (1991):473-483. Print. Rietjens, Judith. Terminal Sedation and Euthanasia. Archinte, n.d. Web.

Global Climate Change and Evolution

Global Climate Change and Evolution It seems like every time a new story is created by the media about science, there needs to be some sort of controversial subject or debate included. The Theory of Evolution is no stranger to controversy, especially the idea that humans evolved over time from other species. Many religious groups and others do not believe in evolution because of this conflict with their creation stories. Another controversial science topic often talked about by the news media is global climate change, or global warming. Most people do not dispute that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing every year. However, the controversy comes in when there is an assertion that human actions are causing the process to speed up. The majority of scientists believe both evolution and global climate change to be true. So how does one affect the other? Global Climate Change Before connecting the two controversial scientific subjects, it is first important to understand what both are individually. Global climate change, once called global warming, is based on the annual increase in the average global temperature. In short, the average temperature of all places on Earth increases every year. This increase in temperature seems to be causing many potential environmental issues including the melting of the polar ice caps, more extreme natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes, and larger areas are becoming affected by droughts. Scientists have linked the increase in temperature to an overall increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the air. Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are necessary to keep some heat trapped in our atmosphere. Without some greenhouse gases, it would be too cold for life to survive on Earth. However, too many greenhouse gases can have extreme effects on the life that is present. Controversy It would be pretty hard to dispute that the average global temperature for Earth is increasing. There are numbers that prove that. However, it is still a controversial subject because many people do not believe that humans are causing global climate change to speed up as some scientists are suggesting. Many opponents of the idea claim the Earth cyclically becomes hotter and colder over long periods of time, which is true. The Earth moves in and out of ice ages over somewhat regular intervals and has since before life and long before humans came into existence. On the other hand, there is no doubt that current human lifestyles do add greenhouse gases into the air at a very high rate. Some greenhouse gases are expelled from factories into the atmosphere. Modern automobiles release many types of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that get trapped in our atmosphere. Also, many forests are disappearing because humans are cutting them down to create more living and agriculture space. This makes a large impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the air because trees and other plants can use carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen through the process of photosynthesis. Unfortunately, if these large, mature trees are cut down, the carbon dioxide builds up and traps more heat. The Effect on Evolution Since evolution is most simply defined as the change in species over time, how can global warming change a species? Evolution is driven through the process of natural selection. As Charles Darwin first explained, natural selection is when favorable adaptations for a given environment are chosen over the less favorable adaptations. In other words, individuals within a population that have traits that are better suited to whatever their immediate environment is will live long enough to reproduce and pass down those favorable traits and adaptations to their offspring. Eventually, the individuals that have less favorable traits for that environment will either have to move to a new, more suitable environment, or they will die out and those traits will no longer be available in the gene pool for new generations of offspring. Ideally, this would create the strongest species possible to live long and prosperous lives in any environment. Going by this definition, natural selection is dependent upon the environment. As the environment changes, the ideal traits and favorable adaptations for that area will also change. This could mean that adaptations in a population of a species that were once the best are now becoming much less favorable. This means the species will have to adapt and perhaps even undergo speciation to create a stronger set of individuals to survive. If the species cannot adapt quickly enough, they will become extinct. Polar Bears and Other Endangered Species For example, polar bears are currently on the endangered species list due to global climate change. Polar bears live in areas where there is very thick ice in the northern polar regions of Earth. They have very thick coats of fur and layers upon  layers of fat to keep warm. They rely on fish that live under the ice as a primary food source and have become skilled ice fishermen in order to survive. Unfortunately, with the melting polar ice caps, the polar bears are finding their once favorable adaptations to be obsolete and they are not adapting quickly enough. The temperatures are increasing in those areas which make the extra fur and fat on the polar bears more of a problem than a favorable adaptation. Also, the thick ice that was once there to walk on is too thin to hold the weight of the polar bears any longer. Therefore, swimming has become a very necessary skill for polar bears to have. If the current increase in temperature keeps up or accelerates, there will be no more polar bears. Those who have the genes to be great swimmers will live a bit longer than those who do not possess that gene, but, eventually, all will most likely disappear since evolution takes many generations and there just is not enough time. There are many other species all over the Earth that are in the same sort of predicaments as the polar bears. Plants are having to adapt to differing amounts of rainfall than what is usual in their areas, other animals need to adjust to changing temperatures, and still, others have to deal with their habitats disappearing or changing due to human interference. There is no doubt that global climate change is causing problems and increasing the need for a quicker pace of evolution in order to avoid mass extinctions all over the world.