Regulations placed around Physician Assisted Suicide and euthanasia (PAS/E) do not guarantee freedom from the adoption of bad policy. The law can be abused by both the patients and the medical practitioners. Although the PAS/E should be offered voluntarily to a patient, in some cases it is offered in secret by physicians to patients who are perceived to be dying. The aspect of allowing a physician’s perception in the matter can be used by discriminating physicians against some patients, especially the aged.
Patients suffering from despair could be willing to terminate their lives thus requesting the physicians to forge their illness documents and administer lethal drugs against the law. Other patients who have no hope for life or facing financial constraints may also wish to commit suicide thus requesting PAS/E. Besides, there always are people willing to break the law either for self-gain or because they are uncaring, the Death with Dignity Act is not an exemption. Some lives are genuinely not worth living but most of the time there will be victims who will emerge from the enforcement of the law. It is therefore impossible to regulate the medical profession and perceive the PAS/E system from murderers camouflaged as legal suicide.
To begin with, Mr. Tom had already signed up to be an organ donor before the accident which provides his will to donate. Secondly, the patient in need of the kidney has waited for a very long time and has a higher chance of survival than Tom. The patient is willing to receive a lesser working kidney like Tom’s which could be treated. In my opinion, a kidney transplant should take place.
Obtaining a patient’s informed consent is a process that a physician should take through a patient for informed decision-making. First, the physician should explain the proposed treatment for the patient. Thereafter, the physician should emphasize a patient-centered decision. Also, the physician should discuss other alternative treatments and explain why the selected intervention is the best. It is also advisable that the physician discuss the risks and benefits attached to the proposed intervention. Finally, the physician should insist on the patient electing their preference, mostly done by signing. However, in this case, Tom is not in a position to give informed consent, thus, doctors should follow the initial wish to become an organ donor.
In case study 1, I am convinced that the program should proceed as this service is better than no service for these remote communities. First, if a treatment is of old technology does not render it bad for the administration. This is because some time ago people depended on it and were healed. Considering that the treatment is still safe for humans, the services are better than nothing hence should proceed.
In case two, I think the program should not proceed since the parents or guardians have a right to make health decisions for their children. Since a child may not be reasonable enough or in the right state of mind to decide on matters of their health, a parent is given authority over a child’s consent. Despite the benefits of a treatment or a drug, the government should not force parents to administer it to their children.