Jim, a middle-aged father is diagnosed with prostate cancer and has refused to continue chemotherapy treatment as he has failed to see any improvement in his condition in recent months, in fact, his condition has progressively worsened. He is educated and knows exactly what is the outcome of his cancer. He has accepted this fate and is not depressed. His family wishes that he would continue treatment because they do not want him to die. They believe in the small chance he has at recovering, but they still honor his refusal of treatment. Fully aware of the recent development of the legalization of Euthanasia, Jim tells his physician that he wants to die and request that the physician fulfills this demand. However, the physician, who is a practicing
…show more content…
Especially in a postmodern time when the scope of medicine has drastically changed and continues to evolve. Eric Cassell, in his book, “The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine” has argued that the fundamental goal of medicine is the relief of suffering. In offering an understanding, he strongly claims that it is the patient that suffers and therefore is the one to say what is his or her source of suffering. The physician’s job is to relieve this suffering. The Oath makes it clear that physicians should not harm their patient, however, in the cases where healing and caring are no longer possible- what is then harm? Is it putting a patient on a life-saving machine while they suffer to a painful death or allowing a patient to die peacefully? Which causes more harm: euthanizing a patient who has no hope of recovering or forcing terminally ill patients to endure pain and suffering when the option to die peacefully is available? According to Cassell, the answer is simple, the physician’s job is to relieve the patient’s suffering and if the patient considers death to be the only escape, under the conditions, the physician’s only job is to help the patient accomplish this. In the current practice of medicine, the definition of what constitute harm is a constant debate. This had led to major changes in the understanding of what is medicine. Richard Eyer, formerly of the Concordia Bioethics Institute at Concordia University, claims that this ‘new’ understanding of medicine has moved the profession of medicine away from the aim of healing to the murky waters of relief of suffering through assisted suicide and
Especially in a postmodern time when the scope of medicine has drastically changed and continues to evolve. Eric Cassell, in his book, “The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine” has argued that the fundamental goal of medicine is the relief of suffering. In offering an understanding, he strongly claims that it is the patient that suffers and therefore is the one to say what is his or her source of suffering. The physician’s job is to relieve this suffering. The Oath makes it clear that physicians should not harm their patient, however, in the cases where healing and caring are no longer possible- what is then harm? Is it putting a patient on a life-saving machine while they suffer to a painful death or allowing a patient to die peacefully? Which causes more harm: euthanizing a patient who has no hope of recovering or forcing terminally ill patients to endure pain and suffering when the option to die peacefully is available? According to Cassell, the answer is simple, the physician’s job is to relieve the patient’s suffering and if the patient considers death to be the only escape, under the conditions, the physician’s only job is to help the patient accomplish this. In the current practice of medicine, the definition of what constitute harm is a constant debate. This had led to major changes in the understanding of what is medicine. Richard Eyer, formerly of the Concordia Bioethics Institute at Concordia University, claims that this ‘new’ understanding of medicine has moved the profession of medicine away from the aim of healing to the murky waters of relief of suffering through assisted suicide and