Medical Technology to prolong life

Medical Technology to prolong life
Name:
Course:
Professor Name:
(December, 2012)
.
Table of contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273611"
Introduction  PAGEREF _Toc343273611 \h
3
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273612"
Cases of medical technology  PAGEREF _Toc343273612 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273613"
The physician’s general ethical duties  PAGEREF _Toc343273613 \h
6
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273614"
Ethical issues and rreasons for the use of medical technology  PAGEREF _Toc343273614 \h
6
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273615"
The way forward  PAGEREF _Toc343273615 \h
9
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273616"
Conclusion  PAGEREF _Toc343273616 \h
10
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343273617"
References  PAGEREF _Toc343273617 \h
11

Introduction
Medical technology and the ever shifting morals of our society are presenting people with tough questions concerning life and death. Today people are wrestling with the question of euthanasia, or "death with dignity." People are asking questions like “My relative is terminally ill, but I believe he or she can live for more days. People do not want their loved ones to suffer. No one wants to feel or undergo the pain of death. Chia is to the opinion that no one is happy “going to the other side of the world” where no one has ever returned to give a testimony of the goodness and badness (Chia, 2010).
The other side to this technological extension is, what about the patient who has no reasonable hope of recovery? Is it right to keep that person alive if technology only prolongs suffering and death? Chia acknowledges that this is not as much a medical question as it is an ethical and even spiritual question for those who believe in the bible. The sole authority for ethical and spiritual issues is the Bible which points out four biblical passages which we can ponder:
Colossians 1:16-17 states that Jesus, who is God, is the creator and sustainer of all things. God is the one who gives life. Human beings should not seek to create life, thereby usurping God’s role. Secondly, in Revelation 1:18 Jesus Christ declares that He holds "the keys of Hades and of Death." God takes life away. Human beings must not seek either to hold onto what God is taking, or to take away what God is not taking. Thirdly, Exodus 20 contains the Ten Commandments. The fourth commandment says "You shall not murder." Murder is defined as taking a human life unlawfully. It is lawful (though not desirable) to take life in protecting one’s own life, in war, or as capital punishment for those crimes God declares to be capital offenses. And finally, In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam and Eve that in the day they disobeyed Him, eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. Romans 6:23 teaches that the wages (or earned consequences) of sin is death. While no one wants to suffer, or die, suffering and death are natural consequences of mankind’s sin. Suffering and death are reminders of the truth that human sin results in death. Going beyond this is trying to give answers to the difficult questions that each must wrestle with God. However not all are Christian and therefore the need to expound the topic out of the context of the bible (Chia, 2010).
Hence, this paper seeks to bring out the ethical cases of medical technology, the physicians general duties, reason that makes the use of technology relevant and the way forward.
Cases of medical technology
Medical technology has bought a lot of impact to the field of medicine. Dickenson and Parker there is now the need to rethink again the traditional knowledge of life and death. The subject of birth is of question as fetuses could now be removed several weeks before the time of traditional delivery. The notion of death is also being revisited as patients can now be revived after prolonged heart, lung, or even brain failure (Dickenson & Parker, 2003). The ethics of the time of death can be reviewed in two scenarios; the Hallmark case of the 1970 and another recent case
The 1970 case was of Karen Ann Quinlan a child of wealthy man from New Jersey. The 21 year old daughter collapsed and went into a vegetative state after taking alcohol that had some drugs in a party. She was not considered dead as her cardiac and respiratory could be maintained through technology although she was in a comma and had sustained brain damage. Dickenson Parker says the incident spiked a lot of debate all over United States regarding the right to die and the ability of medical technology to sustain live longer. The relatives waged war with the hospital to have her removed from the machine. They worn in 1975 but the girl continued breathing without the machine until 1985 when she died of pneumonia attack (Dickenson & Parker, 2003).
The second case occurred in 1990 when a 26 year old Terri Schiavo went in a vegetative state as a result of cardiac arrest which was caused by imbalance of potassium. She sustained a severe brain damage which to doctors view she had no cognitive ability. She stayed in the hospital for eight years without change. Her husband was to the view that they should stop feeding her to die. He went ahead in 2001 and obtained a court order to have the tube removed. To his surprise her sister obtained a court injunction to restore it. In 2003 it was removed but bought a lot of controversy among the people. This made the Florida government have a legislation that authorized the state governor to issue a one stay to reinsert the tube (Dickenson & Parker, 2003).
These two scenarios upgraded the debate on the ethics of prolonging life through technology. As medical professionals, sociologists, legal experts, and judges attempt to untangle the medical, ethical, and constitutional questions, technology becomes a symbol of both vital force and antagonistic purpose. Altman is of the opinion that medical technology raises questions about the obligations of physicians, and of ethical criteria congruent with innovation development. The vague resolution of human dilemmas that result from the advancements and capabilities of modern medical technologies could not be more apparent. Is an individual in a state of brain death any less in possession of the characteristics from one whose respiration and circulation are mechanically maintained? It is a matter that society must decide. Until society decides, it will not be clear what is beneficial or undesirable in regard to the intersection of human values, morals, and ethics with respect to innovative medical technologies (Altman, 2011).
The physician’s general ethical duties
For centuries, humans had no real power to perpetuate a person’s life. And to a degree, that remains true. However, Veatch notes with the advancement of medical technology, human beings have a far greater ability to keep a person alive beyond the time that the person would live without external assistance. These technologies have afforded countless people the ability to continue living beyond an illness, into recovery and restored health. For this we can be thankful (Veatch, 1997).
He says traditionally physical are required to work under four principles; sovereignty, non-malfeasance, beneficence, and fairness. They are required to respect the freedom of choice, do no harm to the patient, aim at ensuring the well being of the patient is achieved and finally respect the law when considering the patients choices and rights (Veatch, 1997). However, these guidelines are too general to be applied in each individual case like the above. Therefore, there is need for physicians to apply more fin...