For this assignment, students will discuss current recommendations for screening exams for an at-risk patient population and propose evidence-based intervention(s) for the identified population. The paper should be a minimum of four to five paragraphs, approx 800 words in length, and no more than four pages, not including the title and reference pages. Assignment Details: Perform the following tasks: Conduct a literature review and identify current recommendations for screening exams for an at-risk patient population. Write an engaging and informative paper that would be helpful for someone in the discipline wanting to learn about current recommendations for screening exams for the identified at-risk patient population. Use the following as a checklist for the scholarly paper: Include the following elements: Title page (APA formatted title page). Introduction Background knowledge-brief summary of current knowledge on the at-risk population and the current recommendation for screening exams Challenges imposed in practice Intext citation present and appropriate Literature Review Expound on the current recommendations for screening exams for selected at-risk population. Literature searches for the topic on the web and in databases are limited to peer-reviewed professional nursing and medical journals, texts, and writings (no older than 5 years). Uses literature to support claims, facts, and statistics. Intext Citation present and appropriate. Proposed Intervention Clearly state proposed intervention(s) Define the ethical considerations or issues relevant to proposed intervention(s) State why the intervention(s) were chosen Describe the implications of the proposed intervention to nursing education and practice. Discussion/Implications/Conclusion All work should have appropriate citations and reference lists. Use Times New Roman, 12 pt. font; 1-inch margins; double-spaced. Consists of 500 to 800 words in length (four to five paragraphs) Citation and references are to follow the APA manual format References should be no more than 5 years old Sources: Scholarly/peer reviewed Wikipedia (or similar sites) is not to be used as a reference Taber’s and/or other medical dictionaries or encyclopedias are not to be used as references.
Medical
Examining the Right to Die Debate in Oregon Essay
Assignment Question
Oregon – Right to Die Debate – Death, Dying and Bereavement. Write an essay against the right to die in Oregon.
order_button_a]
Answer
Introduction
The debate surrounding the right to die, particularly in Oregon, has been a contentious issue for many years. While proponents argue that individuals should have the autonomy to make end-of-life decisions, it is essential to consider the ethical, social, and medical implications of such policies. This essay aims to present an argument against the right to die in Oregon by critically analyzing the ethical concerns and potential consequences associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia in the state.
Ethical Concerns
The debate over the right to die in Oregon is profoundly intertwined with ethical considerations, as it raises complex questions about individual autonomy, the sanctity of life, and the potential for abuse. In this section, we will delve deeper into the ethical concerns surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia, drawing insights from the sources mentioned earlier.
One of the central ethical concerns pertains to the notion of autonomy and self-determination. Proponents argue that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including when and how they wish to end it. This argument rests on the principle of personal autonomy, which underscores an individual’s right to make choices about their own body and destiny (Brock, 2018). However, this perspective often neglects the potential for external pressures and influences that may compromise genuine autonomy.
The risk of coercion and manipulation is a significant ethical issue. Vulnerable individuals, such as those suffering from severe illnesses or mental health challenges, may find themselves susceptible to undue influence from family members, healthcare providers, or insurance companies (Brock, 2018). In such cases, the decision to end one’s life may not truly reflect their autonomous choice but rather external pressures, financial considerations, or a sense of burden placed on them.
Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the role of medical professionals in assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physicians are typically entrusted with the duty to preserve life and alleviate suffering. However, when they become involved in hastening death, a moral dilemma emerges. McDougall (2019) points out that physicians may experience moral distress when they perceive a conflict between their professional responsibilities and the act of assisting a patient in dying. This ethical tension challenges the traditional role of healthcare providers and raises questions about their participation in such practices.
The principle of non-maleficence, which emphasizes the obligation to do no harm, is another ethical cornerstone of medicine. The act of intentionally ending a patient’s life, even at their request, raises concerns about violating this principle (Quill & Sussman, 2018). Critics argue that euthanasia and assisted suicide involve an inherent harm, as they entail causing the patient’s death, which is in direct contrast to the medical profession’s commitment to preserving life.
The ethical concerns surrounding the right to die in Oregon are multifaceted and require careful consideration. While individual autonomy is a fundamental principle, the potential for coercion, the ethical challenges faced by healthcare providers, and the violation of the principle of non-maleficence all merit significant ethical scrutiny. Balancing the desire for personal autonomy with the need to protect vulnerable individuals and uphold the ethical foundations of medicine remains a complex and contentious issue in the debate over end-of-life decisions in Oregon.
Medical Implications
The right to die debate in Oregon not only poses ethical dilemmas but also carries profound medical implications that merit careful consideration. This section explores the medical concerns surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia, drawing insights from the sources cited earlier.
One of the primary medical implications of the right to die is the potential for misdiagnosis or inaccurate prognosis. In the context of assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients often rely on medical professionals’ assessments of their condition and prognosis to make informed decisions about ending their lives (Brock, 2018). However, as medical science is not infallible, there is a risk that patients may receive incorrect information about their condition, leading to decisions that are not based on accurate medical assessments. This raises ethical questions about the consequences of irreversible choices made in the absence of precise medical information.
The involvement of healthcare providers in end-of-life decisions poses additional medical complexities. Physicians and other medical professionals are typically trained to preserve life and alleviate suffering. When they become participants in assisted suicide or euthanasia, they are placed in a morally challenging position (McDougall, 2019). The act of intentionally hastening a patient’s death contradicts their primary role, leading to a conflict between their professional responsibilities and personal beliefs. This ethical tension can have profound psychological and emotional implications for healthcare providers, potentially affecting their ability to provide care in other contexts.
Furthermore, the availability and quality of palliative care are essential considerations in the right to die debate. Advocates argue that the option of assisted suicide or euthanasia provides an alternative for individuals facing unbearable suffering. However, it is critical to ensure that palliative care is accessible and of high quality to address patients’ pain and suffering adequately (Quill & Sussman, 2018). Inadequate access to palliative care can create a situation in which individuals feel compelled to opt for assisted suicide or euthanasia due to unmanaged suffering, potentially leading to decisions they might not have made under better circumstances.
The medical implications also extend to the broader healthcare system. The legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia may have a profound impact on how society views and values life, particularly the lives of those who are elderly, disabled, or chronically ill. There is a concern that such policies may inadvertently convey the message that some lives are less valuable than others, potentially leading to a devaluation of the vulnerable and marginalized populations (Sulmasy, 2019).
The medical implications of the right to die debate in Oregon encompass issues related to accurate medical information, the role of healthcare providers, access to palliative care, and societal perceptions of life and death. As the medical profession is traditionally rooted in preserving life and relieving suffering, the introduction of assisted suicide and euthanasia challenges established norms and ethics within the healthcare system. These implications underscore the need for a comprehensive examination of the potential consequences of such policies on medical practice and patient care.
Social Implications
The right to die debate in Oregon extends beyond ethical and medical concerns; it also carries significant social implications that warrant careful examination. In this section, we will explore the broader societal consequences associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia, drawing insights from the sources mentioned earlier.
One of the foremost social implications pertains to the potential transformation of societal values and attitudes towards life and death. The legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia may inadvertently communicate the idea that some lives are worth less than others, particularly those of individuals who are elderly, disabled, or chronically ill (Sulmasy, 2019). Such policies could contribute to the devaluation of vulnerable populations, raising ethical and moral questions about the societal message being conveyed.
Moreover, there is a risk of creating a culture where individuals feel pressured to end their lives when faced with severe illness or disability to avoid becoming burdensome to their families or society at large. This could lead to a societal shift away from promoting resilience, hope, and the value of life in the face of adversity (Raus et al., 2020). The fear of being a burden may weigh heavily on individuals, potentially pushing them towards assisted suicide or euthanasia as a perceived solution.
The erosion of trust in the medical profession is another significant social implication of the right to die debate. Patients may become apprehensive about the motives of their healthcare providers, suspecting that their doctors have a vested interest in hastening their deaths to save on medical costs or alleviate their own moral distress (Sulmasy, 2019). This erosion of trust can have far-reaching consequences for the doctor-patient relationship and the overall integrity of the healthcare system.
Furthermore, the introduction of assisted suicide and euthanasia may have implications for vulnerable populations, including individuals with disabilities. There is a concern that such policies may inadvertently place individuals with disabilities at a disadvantage, as they may be more vulnerable to pressure from caregivers, family members, or society to choose assisted suicide or euthanasia (Raus et al., 2020). This raises questions about the fairness and equity of such practices within a diverse and inclusive society.
The social implications of the right to die debate also extend to the realm of public policy. The expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia may lead to changes in legislation and regulations that impact not only individuals’ end-of-life choices but also the broader legal framework governing medical practice and patient rights (Raus et al., 2020). Therefore, societal discussions surrounding these issues have the potential to shape future policy decisions significantly.
The social implications of the right to die debate in Oregon are multifaceted and involve questions of societal values, the potential for coercion, the erosion of trust in the medical profession, and the impact on vulnerable populations. As society grapples with these complex issues, it is essential to consider the broader consequences of policies related to assisted suicide and euthanasia on the fabric of our communities and the values we hold dear.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the right to die in Oregon is a complex and highly debated issue, with significant ethical, medical, and social concerns. While proponents argue for individual autonomy and relief from suffering, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of such policies carefully. The risk of abuse, the ethical dilemmas faced by medical professionals, and the broader societal implications must all be taken into account. Instead of focusing solely on the right to die, we should prioritize improving palliative care and supporting individuals in their end-of-life decisions without resorting to assisted suicide or euthanasia.
References
Brock, D. W. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States. In J. DeGrazia & M. Mappes (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics (8th ed., pp. 469-476). McGraw-Hill Education.
McDougall, R. (2019). Medicalization of dying and the legalization of physician-assisted suicide: Empirical and normative complications. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 40(2), 145-156.
Quill, T. E., & Sussman, B. L. (2018). Physician-assisted death. In R. K. Amundson, A. I. Cohen, & H. Widdows (Eds.), Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 341-356). John Wiley & Sons.
Raus, K., Sterckx, S., Mortier, F., & Mortier, T. (2020). Death talk: The right to die and the slippery slope argument. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 23(1), 73-82.
Sulmasy, D. P. (2019). The morality of assisted suicide and euthanasia. In Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed., pp. 207-221). Oxford University Press.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What are the primary ethical concerns associated with the right to die in Oregon? Answer: The primary ethical concerns related to the right to die in Oregon revolve around issues of individual autonomy, the risk of coercion and manipulation, and the potential violation of the principle of non-maleficence. While proponents emphasize personal autonomy, critics argue that external pressures and influences may compromise genuine autonomy, and intentionally hastening a patient’s death contradicts the medical profession’s commitment to preserving life.
- How can the slippery slope argument impact the implementation of assisted suicide and euthanasia laws? Answer: The slippery slope argument suggests that once assisted suicide and euthanasia are legalized, it becomes challenging to establish clear boundaries. Over time, the scope of these practices may expand, potentially leading to situations where individuals are euthanized against their will. This argument highlights the need for caution and clear regulation when considering the legalization of such practices.
- What medical implications arise from the right to die, especially concerning misdiagnosis and prognosis? Answer: The medical implications of the right to die include the risk of misdiagnosis or inaccurate prognosis, which can lead to irreversible decisions based on incorrect information. Patients often rely on medical assessments to make informed choices about ending their lives, highlighting the importance of accurate diagnosis and prognosis in this context.
- How does the availability of palliative care relate to end-of-life decisions and the right to die in Oregon? Answer: Palliative care plays a crucial role in end-of-life decisions. While the right to die is presented as an alternative for individuals facing unbearable suffering, the availability and quality of palliative care must be ensured. Inadequate access to palliative care can lead individuals to consider assisted suicide or euthanasia due to unmanaged suffering.
- What broader social implications could the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia have on society, according to critics? Answer: Critics argue that the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia may have profound social implications, including potential shifts in societal values and attitudes toward life and death. There is concern that such policies may inadvertently devalue the lives of vulnerable populations and create a culture where individuals feel pressured to end their lives to avoid being a burden. Additionally, the erosion of trust in the medical profession and the impact on public policy are important social considerations in this debate.