|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Does the government have the right to intervene when the family has reached a ones most personal decision? ... Since the 1970s with the Karen Ann Quinlan case there has been a much-heated debate over the right-to-die issue. Should an individual be kept alive by "extraordinary means" even after family, friends, and medical have lost all hope in the individuals recovery. Furthermore who should make this decision?
Immediate family should be given the decision to discontinue life support for there loved ones. If our loved one is not able to make rational decisions pertaining to there welfare and have not already outlined his or her wishes in the form of a healthcare proxy, an advance directive or by appointing a surrogate decision maker to act on his/her behalf, then it should be within the familys rights to make this decision.
A family should be entitled to make the decision of discontinuing life support, in the case of a loved one whom has fallen victim to a persistent vegetative state (or PVS). ... Judges have expressed various opinions, but common themes are that patients have a legal right to decline life-prolonging treatments and that their caretakers have no legal duty to prolong life when treatment will not restore consciousness or improve their condition.
Patients that are considered to be competent, have a right to refuse medical treatment, even at the risk of their own death. Additionally, if a person has indicated whether life-sustaining treatment should be used or not in the event of permanent unconsciousness, the courts will honor the persons previously expressed wishes.
If the person receiving life-sustaining treatment is incompetent, a surrogate decision maker should be identified.
Approximate Word count = 1341
Approximate Pages = 5.4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|