For Your Final Assignment Select A Contemporary Ethical Dile

For Your Final Assignment Select A Contemporary Ethical Dilemma In He

For your final assignment, select a contemporary ethical dilemma in health care of your choice (e.g., physician-assisted suicide, abortion, confidentiality, and so on), and research that topic. Use the following as a guide to conduct your research and write your paper: Explain in detail the relevant laws and/or regulations that are the focus of your contemporary ethical dilemma Discuss relevant law cases (cite your sources). Discuss how the laws and regulations and/or the judicial decisions regarding those laws and regulations have impacted health care or have evolved over time. Discuss the future impact of the laws, regulations, or cases on health care. Discuss how the topic is relevant to your current job in health care or may impact your future career choices in health care. Explain how and if technology has had an impact on your contemporary ethical dilemma. You are expected to use a minimum of 2 references and utilize APA-style formatting.

Paper For Above instruction

The realm of healthcare is fraught with complex ethical dilemmas that evolve with societal changes, technological advancements, and legal developments. Among contemporary ethical challenges, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) stands out due to its profound ethical, legal, and societal implications. This paper explores the pertinent laws, notable legal cases, their historical evolution, future impact, relevance to healthcare careers, and the influence of technology on PAS.

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide involves medical professionals providing patients with the means to end their life, typically when suffering from terminal illnesses. Legally, PAS is a contentious issue with a patchwork of regulations across different jurisdictions. In the United States, the Patient Self-Determination Act (1990) emphasizes the right of patients to make decisions regarding their medical care, but the legality of PAS varies from state to state. For instance, states like Oregon, Washington, and California have enacted laws permitting PAS under specific conditions (Oregon Death with Dignity Act, 1997). These laws generally specify eligibility criteria, including terminal illness prognosis, mental capacity, and informed consent.

At the federal level, the American Medical Association (AMA) implicitly opposes PAS, considering it incompatible with the physician's role to preserve life. However, legal statutes and professional guidelines often influence clinical practice and policy decisions, creating a complex legal landscape.

Legal Cases Impacting Physician-Assisted Suicide

Significant legal cases have shaped the landscape of PAS. The 1997 Oregon Death with Dignity Act faced legal challenges but was upheld in the case Oregon v. Gonzales (2006), where the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by the U.S. Department of Justice, affirming Oregon’s right to regulate PAS. Conversely, federal attempts to suspend or block PAS laws have often failed, reaffirming states' authority.

In Canada, the landmark case Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015) led to the legalization of assisted suicide nationwide, citing the violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This principal case marked a pivotal shift, acknowledging individual autonomy and the right to make end-of-life choices legally.

Evolution and Impact of Laws and Judicial Decisions

Over time, legal rulings and statutes have shifted toward recognizing individual autonomy and compassionate care. The Oregon case exemplifies a state-level affirmation of PAS rights, while the Carter case set a national precedent in Canada. These legal decisions have influenced healthcare practices by integrating end-of-life options and ethical considerations into clinical decision-making. They also prompted medical organizations to develop guidelines that balance ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence.

Future Outlook on Laws and Healthcare Impact

The future of PAS legislation hinges on societal values, political climate, and technological developments. As more jurisdictions consider legalizing PAS or euthanasia, healthcare providers will encounter increased ethical complexity, requiring clear policies and training. Technological advances, particularly in palliative care and pain management, may influence the demand for PAS, potentially reducing its necessity. Conversely, advancements in telemedicine could broaden access but also raise ethical concerns regarding oversight and consent.

Relevance to Healthcare Careers and the Role of Technology

For healthcare professionals, understanding PAS laws and ethical principles is integral to providing patient-centered care. Such knowledge impacts career decision-making, especially for clinicians working in palliative, oncology, and geriatrics fields. Technology's role extends to electronic health records (EHRs), telemedicine consultations, and decision-support tools that facilitate informed choices and documentation of patients’ end-of-life wishes.

Moreover, AI-driven decision-making tools and telehealth platforms can enhance communication but also pose ethical challenges related to patient privacy, informed consent, and the potential for compromised oversight. As technology evolves, healthcare professionals must navigate these ethical landscapes while advocating for policies that uphold patient autonomy and safety.

Conclusion

Physician-assisted suicide exemplifies a complex, evolving ethical dilemma intricately linked with legal statutes, judicial decisions, societal values, and technological progress. Legal frameworks such as the Oregon law and the Canadian Carter case have advanced the recognition of individual autonomy in end-of-life choices, shaping healthcare practices. Future developments will likely expand or modify these legal provisions, impacting how healthcare providers approach patient care. For practitioners, a thorough understanding of the legal, ethical, and technological dimensions is essential to navigate this sensitive issue responsibly and compassionately.

References

  • Gorsuch, N. (2006). Oregon v. Gonzales, 546 U.S. 243. Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331.
  • American Medical Association. (2018). Code of Medical Ethics Opinion E-2.2: Physician-Assisted Suicide.
  • Oregon Health Authority. (2017). Oregon Death with Dignity Act: 20 Years of Compassionate Choice. Oregon Health Authority.
  • Boudreau, J. D., & Somerville, M. A. (2017). Ethical Perspectives on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Journal of Ethics & Human Research, 39(2), 77–87.
  • Chochinov, H. M. (2006). Dignity and the Ethics of End-of-Life Care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9(6), 1174–1180.
  • Volker, D. (2019). Telemedicine and End-of-Life Decision Making: Ethical Considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(4), 255–259.
  • Sullivan, M. D., & McGraw, S. L. (2019). Advancing Ethical Use of Technology in End-of-Life Care. AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(5), E412–E418.
  • Terry, M. A., & Bruera, E. (2018). Pain Management and Ethical Challenges in Palliative Care. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, 12(2), 171–177.
  • Mitchell, K. R., & Brennan, M. (2020). The Future of Assisted Dying Legislation. Journal of Medical Law and Ethics, 8(1), 25–34.

Related Assignments