After Reading The Brittany Maynard Case Create An Original P

After Reading The Brittany Maynard Case Create An Original Post That

After reading the Brittany Maynard case, create an original post that compares your professional and personal positions on the case. What are the code of ethics, professional regulations, and policies that support your professional position? Explain how to work through ideas when your professional and personal positions come into conflict. California legislators just introduced a bill to let the terminally ill end their own lives. Brittany Maynard chose to move to Oregon to access assisted dying legislation following her diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. The case highlights complex ethical, legal, and personal considerations surrounding end-of-life choices, especially in the context of changing legislation and societal attitudes toward death with dignity.

Paper For Above instruction

The Brittany Maynard case compellingly illustrates the profound ethical dilemmas faced when personal wishes intersect with professional responsibilities and societal norms. As a healthcare professional, my stance on assisted death is deeply influenced by the principles embedded within the code of medical ethics, as well as prevailing policies that shape end-of-life care. Conversely, my personal stance may be influenced by cultural, religious, and moral beliefs, which can sometimes oppose institutional guidelines.

From a professional standpoint, the American Medical Association (AMA)’s Code of Medical Ethics emphasizes the importance of respecting patient autonomy but also underscores the physician’s role in safeguarding life and alleviating suffering. Specifically, Opinion E-2.2 states that physicians should respect patients’ decisions while adhering to legal standards and their own ethical convictions. Many states, including Oregon, have enacted legislation like the Death with Dignity Act, which legitimizes physician-assisted dying under strict conditions. Such policies are grounded in respect for individual autonomy, the alleviation of unbearable suffering, and the recognition of death as a personal and private matter.

Support for assisted dying within the medical community tends to be rooted in the principles of beneficence and respect for autonomy. The Hippocratic Oath, historically emphasizing the preservation of life, is interpreted in contemporary medicine as prioritizing patient well-being and quality of life. When a competent patient with a terminal illness voluntarily requests assistance in ending their life, many healthcare providers interpret this as an ethical obligation to respect their wishes, provided all safeguards are in place to ensure informed consent and mental competence. The Oregon law mandates the involvement of independent physicians to confirm the patient’s mental capacity, thus serving as an ethical safeguard against potential coercion or misunderstanding.

However, conflicts arise when personal values diverge from these policies. Many healthcare providers hold personal or religious beliefs that oppose assisted death, leading to moral distress or conflicts of conscience. The AMA recognizes that physicians have the right to conscientious objection but emphasizes the importance of referring patients to willing providers to ensure access to legal options. Navigating such conflicts requires a delicate balance—respecting personal morals while fulfilling professional obligations to patient care and autonomy.

On a personal level, my stance aligns with the principle of respecting individual autonomy and minimizing suffering. I believe that terminally ill patients should have the choice to end their lives with dignity, especially when faced with unrelievable pain or loss of autonomy. Brittany Maynard’s decision exemplifies the importance of personal agency at the end of life. Her case underscores the need for compassionate legal frameworks that allow patients to make choices consistent with their values and beliefs about dignity and suffering.

Nevertheless, my personal conviction is balanced by concerns about potential abuses and societal implications. I worry that legalizing assisted death might undermine the societal value placed on preserving life or lead to subtle pressures on vulnerable populations. Hence, any policy should include rigorous safeguards—clear eligibility criteria, mental competency assessments, and ongoing psychological support—to ensure that such choices are truly autonomous and informed. This is consistent with the policies adopted in Oregon, which serve as a model for safeguarding autonomy while protecting the vulnerable.

When professional and personal positions conflict, open dialogue and ethical deliberation are crucial. Healthcare providers must engage in honest reflection about their beliefs and work collaboratively with patients to respect their choices without compromising their own moral integrity. Institutional policies should facilitate accommodations for conscientious objection, while ensuring patient access to end-of-life options through referrals and alternate providers. Ethical frameworks such as principlism—balancing beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice—offer a structured approach to navigate these conflicts.

Legislative developments in California, such as the proposed bill allowing terminally ill patients to access life-ending medication, reflect evolving societal attitudes that increasingly recognize personal autonomy. Similar laws in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont demonstrate a societal shift towards respecting individual choices at the end of life. These laws incorporate safeguards to respect both the autonomy of terminally ill patients and societal interests in protecting vulnerable populations.

In conclusion, my professional stance supports legislation that respects patient autonomy and alleviates suffering, consistent with ethical medical practices and state policies like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Simultaneously, my personal beliefs advocate for compassionate, well-regulated options that empower terminally ill individuals to make choices aligning with their values. Bridging the gap between professional ethics and personal morality requires ongoing ethical dialogue, patient-centered care, and legally enshrined safeguards to uphold dignity and respect in end-of-life decisions.

References

• American Medical Association. (2016). Code of Medical Ethics. AMA. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics
• Gorsuch, N. (2006). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton University Press.
• Oregon Health Authority. (2013). Oregon Death with Dignity Act: 2013 Data Summary. Oregon.gov.
• Sulmasy, D. P., & Mueller, P. S. (2017). Physician-assisted death: Ethical, practical, and religious considerations. Challenges, 8(2), 45-54.
• Harris, J. (2010). Enhancing Autonomy and Personal Dignity in End-of-Life Care. Bioethics, 24(4), 211-219.
• California Legislative Information. (2015). Bill Analysis: End-of-Life Options Act. leginfo.ca.gov.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Frey, L. (2014). Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Assisted Dying. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(10), 663-668.
• Caplan, A. L. (2017). Ethical Challenges in Assisted Dying. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(20), 1979-1981.
• Ganzini, L., et al. (2009). Physicians' Experiences with Hospice Patients Who Requested Physician-Assisted Suicide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(2), 123-129.