Eight years ago my uncle was diagnosed with stage 4 throat, lung, and spine cancer. He began treatment immediately, but saw very little relief from the treatments. He spent four years in and out of hospitals and medical facilities for surgeries, therapies, and pain management. During this time he asked several doctors to end his pain and suffering and allow him to die peacefully before he was unable to make the decision. Each time he was told that it was illegal in the state of Georgia to offer such assistance, but hospice could keep him comfortable until the end. Tracey was just as worried about the pain and suffering of his family and friends as we watched him waste away and the money we spent trying to keep him comfortable. He wanted to do what was best for everyone despite the never-ending pain he endured. No amount of hospice care was able to truly take away the physical, emotional, and psychological pain that accompanied the terminal cancer.
Tracie was very much a Utilitarian. He always wanted what was best for family …show more content…
The agreed that doing what was best for the greatest number of people was important. However, in this case, according to the doctors, the duty to not cause harm outweighed doing what was best for everyone including allowing Tracey to make the decision to take his life, it was just as important, if not more so that he live. They were bound by the oath to do no harm as well as the oath to provide the best treatment they could for the patient. The problem was deciding what was more important- keeping Tracey alive no matter what or giving him and his family relief from the suffering we were all having to withstand. My father and I, along with other family members watched him suffer through four, almost five agonizing years of cancer, kemo, and failing organs. At last, his body failed him and he died. As stated in his will he was not resuscitated and was finally able to
Tracie was very much a Utilitarian. He always wanted what was best for family …show more content…
The agreed that doing what was best for the greatest number of people was important. However, in this case, according to the doctors, the duty to not cause harm outweighed doing what was best for everyone including allowing Tracey to make the decision to take his life, it was just as important, if not more so that he live. They were bound by the oath to do no harm as well as the oath to provide the best treatment they could for the patient. The problem was deciding what was more important- keeping Tracey alive no matter what or giving him and his family relief from the suffering we were all having to withstand. My father and I, along with other family members watched him suffer through four, almost five agonizing years of cancer, kemo, and failing organs. At last, his body failed him and he died. As stated in his will he was not resuscitated and was finally able to