We are familiar with the idea in the Hippocratic Oath all graduating medical students swear to, that,. At the very least, doctors will do no harm. Yet, what is rarely discussed is another part of this oath: "I will remember that I remain a member of society, with typical obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm." Yet, the views of society toward death- whether assisted suicide, a DNLR order by a patient, or merely permitting a patient to expire to save additional pain and grievous suffering are discussions not only within our society, but within the court system as well.
Perhaps one should begin facing the dilemma proposed- eliminating two tube feedings, dehydration, and the withholding of other medical treatment from a dying patient- from the patient's side. "The right of the patient to direct his or her medical care and health outcome, known as patient autonomy, and the right of society to control and allocate 'limited resources', known as 'distributive justice', will certainly collide" (Guellec 1999 1). What Ms. Guellec describes in her essay is that the ethical and moral beliefs of society - especially the medical profession- has changed and is continuing to change. "According to Hiller (1986), six ethical principles are relevant for health care leaders. They are beneficence, non-malfeasance, respect for persons, justice, utility, and truth telling" (Guellec 1999 1). But, as she points out, this is all very theoretical and perhaps not the way the "real world"- patients and their families- see the need to keep a dying person alive, or, somehow, to withhold some medication or nutrition to permit a death with dignity.
"The moral principle of beneficence is one of the time-honoured ethical foundations of medical practice. . . this involves using specialized medical knowledge to advise patients with regard to their health; that is, doctors are morally obligated t...