Essay Example on When Life Support Becomes a Fate Worse Than Death

Life support initiatives are marred with contention about the ethical consideration surrounding such decisions. Is the burden of care or life support to patients bestowed upon the patients, caregivers, or family members and guardians? Who has the final call to end life or continue sustaining the same on ICU machines? Sometimes medical scenarios arise where it is best to end life than to keep the patient sedated or in a vegetative state.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In the article, "When living is a fate worse than death," Newsweek staff details a scenario where, in line with the wishes of the patient's parents, the medical staff did all they could to sustain the life of little Charlotte. However, this directive was against the professional view of the medics who held the opinion that letting Charlotte die would serve her greater good than the continued death evasion as the doctors and nurses try to resuscitate her each time her organs fail. The article explicitly narrates how Charlotte's life has been a struggle since inception. Being born with malformed brain cells, the kid always had to make hospital visits back and forth between ER and pediatric nursing centers, home, and now the ICU.

Reading through the article, one cannot help but wonder about the ethical consideration surrounding assisted living or euthanasia. Various instances arise where the medical profession is at a loss on the appropriate course of action to take about patients' lives. However, where conflicting opinions and judgments arise pertaining to patients' conditions, who has the final call to either sustain life, prolong death, or induce euthanasia. Moreover, what is the benefit of counseling to aid in decision making when it reaches time to make the life and death decision? All stakeholders in the medical field should make haste to have useful and conclusive guidelines to be applied in such situations.

In respect to this discussion, I tender support to medical professionals to decide when life can be sustained and when it is irrelevant to do so. The medical staffs have medicinal knowledge and professionalism to inform best on their medical approach to specific medical issues. As such, a certain degree of trust and professionalism should be bestowed upon the doctors and nurses to act in good faith for the wellness of the patients. In line with the Hippocratic Oath sworn by those in the medical profession, it is unbecoming of them not to save lives when medical interventions seem positive to achieve the same.

This concept pertaining to assisted living and death has a close resemblance to the issue of abortion. Most pro-abortion activists believe that a child's life begins at birth. Antagonists, however, adhere to the belief that a fetus has life; that life begins at fertilization. It arises, therefore, that life is precious and that at no particular point in time should one lose a life when conflicting evidence informs otherwise.

All stakeholders have to undertake due diligence to ensure that humans do not lose life unnecessarily. Despite this convention, however, who determines when to die and when to live? In their article, Newsweek staff (2020) infers on the daunting instances when medical opinion clashes with social norms and ethics. It is a global understanding that life is precious. Also, people understand that the work of the medical staff is to facilitate healthy living and wellness to patients under their care. However, why do the public not believe nurses and doctors when they prescribe assisted dying?

There is a disconnect and mistrust between the public and the medical professionals when it comes to matters concerning patients' lives. The public, in most cases, family members and guardians, react from an emotional angle of love and close affiliation to the patients. Doctors and nurses, on the other, give medical opinions based on their professionalism and rational evaluation of the patients' health conditions. In its simplicity, therefore, it stands to reason that doctors and nurses are better placed to make informed judgments concerning the medical direction of the patients' care under their watch.

Amicable understandings between the various factions and stakeholders in the medical field are necessary to address the issues of assisted living and euthanasia. The objective of euthanasia, Cooney (2020) explains, is to alleviate patients' pain if they continue living. As illustrated by Charlotte's case from the article by Newsweek staff, it is not proper to sustain the patient's life when in actuality, the medical interventions prolong death. To bring everyone on board, therefore, it is prudent for hospital management to conduct guiding and counseling sessions between caregivers and the patients' families and guardians.

Counseling will facilitate sound decision making, as all parties will make decisions from an informed point of view. Particularly guardians and family members, they will get to understand the gravity of the matter and what it is they are requesting of the medical team. Timely decision making saves everyone a great deal of hassle. This piece of writing upholds the view that caregivers are the ones with the authority to act in the best interest of all the other parties. The doctors and nurses duly know the pros and cons of ICU interventions. Besides, on a case by case basis, they know too well the patients' survival rates. If, in their best judgment, the medical team infers that it is best not to resuscitate a patient, then perhaps the society should learn to trust such calls are for the greater good of everyone.

References

Cooney, K. (2020). Historical perspective of euthanasia in veterinary medicine. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice, 50(3), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2019.12.001

Newsweek staff, (Apr 12, 2020). When living is a fate worse than death. Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/when-living-fate-worse-death-158815