Death Panel Ethics
A "death panel" is a fictional hospital committee that makes triaging decisions on patients-- who lives and who dies.
Two questions.
1. Would you like to serve on such a committee? Why or why not?
2. What ethical or religious principles, values, or parameters would you invoke in determining resource allocation-- doctor time and money for terminal patients?
For example, how would you priortize a two year old who has one year to live and a eighty year old who has one year to live?
My initial response is to say to prioritize the two year old over the eighty year old b/c the eighty year old has lived a full (long) life and that extra time wouldn't represent as large of a portion of his life and thus wouldn't be as meaningful. But I'd have to know more about the situation including the patients' relatives and the patients' potential for getting better to make this kind of decision.
Would the patient's position (say, a senator), role (say, a mother), background (say, a criminal) , or wealth (say, a philanthrophist) honestly play into your decision making?
How do you balance a patient's choice-- say to self-termination-- against the wishes of the family-- against self-termination, without respect to financial outgo.
I think a terminally ill patient should be allowed to die. It's my personal take on the issue based on the fact that I don't have any beliefs that make such a thing immoral, and that such a person shouldn't be obligated to live a life of suffering if they don't feel that it's worth it. I respect that some family members might not appreciate this, but I don't think it's a terminally ill patients' responsibility to stay alive just to make other people happy.
Most large hospitals have a triage procedure. Many more institutions have a triage procedure at least in the planning stage for a pandemic. Medical people know how to do this sort of thing. They have, in many cases, thought long and hard about priorities.
Many medical personnel are unwilling to even "snow" a terminally ill patient. It doesn't seem possible that many would be willing to participate in any sort of action based on other than raw medical necessity.
A reader answers both questions:
1. Yes! I'm the man for the job.
2. Oh. Nevermind.
Two questions.
1. Would you like to serve on such a committee? Why or why not?
2. What ethical or religious principles, values, or parameters would you invoke in determining resource allocation-- doctor time and money for terminal patients?
For example, how would you priortize a two year old who has one year to live and a eighty year old who has one year to live?
My initial response is to say to prioritize the two year old over the eighty year old b/c the eighty year old has lived a full (long) life and that extra time wouldn't represent as large of a portion of his life and thus wouldn't be as meaningful. But I'd have to know more about the situation including the patients' relatives and the patients' potential for getting better to make this kind of decision.
Would the patient's position (say, a senator), role (say, a mother), background (say, a criminal) , or wealth (say, a philanthrophist) honestly play into your decision making?
How do you balance a patient's choice-- say to self-termination-- against the wishes of the family-- against self-termination, without respect to financial outgo.
I think a terminally ill patient should be allowed to die. It's my personal take on the issue based on the fact that I don't have any beliefs that make such a thing immoral, and that such a person shouldn't be obligated to live a life of suffering if they don't feel that it's worth it. I respect that some family members might not appreciate this, but I don't think it's a terminally ill patients' responsibility to stay alive just to make other people happy.
Most large hospitals have a triage procedure. Many more institutions have a triage procedure at least in the planning stage for a pandemic. Medical people know how to do this sort of thing. They have, in many cases, thought long and hard about priorities.
Many medical personnel are unwilling to even "snow" a terminally ill patient. It doesn't seem possible that many would be willing to participate in any sort of action based on other than raw medical necessity.
A reader answers both questions:
1. Yes! I'm the man for the job.
2. Oh. Nevermind.
Labels: ethics
posted by My Mall and News at
5:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home