Terminal sedation
On April 15, 1975 Karen Ann Quinlan age 21 became ill. She had difficulty breathing, became unresponsive and showed signs of brain damage. Her doctors described her condition as persistent vegetative state. At times she could not breathe and eventually a respirator tube was inserted into her throat. Karen's family and physicians decided in July of 1975 that the respirator should be discontinued. Unfortunately a few days later the lead physician informed the family that he would not honor their wishes due to no medical precedent in regarding the actions of removal of life support. The Superior Court of New Jersey intervened and the county prosecutor, the treating physicians and hospital all filled suit against the family. The Quinlan family took the suit to the Supreme Court who in turn found that Karen would not come out of her comatose state. "Persons in Persistent vegetative state or in any other condition in which therapy is either ineffective or would impose a grave burden, removing life support does not cause death. Rather removing life support allows death to occur as the result of natural pathology which is not beneficial to resist." The Supreme Court ruled that Karen's family had the right
In 2000 a survey of terminally ill patients, bereaved families and the AMA listed the goals for the end of life and good deaths which are control of care build strong relationships with loved ones to avoid prolonging of pain and the choice to end ones own life. Medical Treatment Act of 1988The Medical Treatment Act of 1988 clarifies the law relating to the right of patients to refuse medical treatment if the patient does not feel that it is in there best interest. And most of all they were worried about the pain. A good death by terminal sedation is that of ending a life which is already terminal and ending physical pain. Dying with DignityMany people who are terminally ill feel that in the last days or hours of their life they will die in a horrible fashion. With the medical technology that we have that pain can be controlled and that there is no reason to die earlier. This act also protects medical practioners to comply with the refusal of treatment certificate. So which causes more harm? Controlled the patient's pain to unconsciousness and maybe to the point of death or to allow nature to take its course and causing extreme pain. Also their must be consent from the patient or their guardians and all must have the understanding of the treatment or alternatives. Nancy Beth had expressed whishes not to be on life support if it ever came to it. QuantityPatients may not want to be hooked up to machines or kept alive in a vegetative state. Nancy's family was allowed to do this after the passing of the Patient Self Determination Act. The guidelines to use Terminal Sedation are the patient must be terminally ill, in the last stages of life their suffering must be extreme and have uncontrolled distress and delirium.
Common topics in this essay:
National Center,
Paternalism Autonomy,
Terminal Sedation,
Treatment Act,
Ann Quinlan,
Quantity Patients,
Association ANA,
Circuit Court,
Beth Cruzan,
Supreme Court,
terminal sedation,
life support,
medical treatment,
terminally ill,
loved ones,
supreme court,
pain dying,
self determination,
persistent vegetative,
quality life,
removing life support,
self determination act,
treatment act 1988,
refusal treatment certificate,
medical treatment act,
|
Acceptance Essays
