Breather Assignment

Critical Care: The meaning beyond

Perhaps if God had not wanted us to act as spokes men in his place he would have never given us the power. This is a legitimate argument that doctors face on a daily basis while working with the sick and dying that no longer have the will to live. When one lives their lives day in and day out on machines that keep them alive because their own bodies can no longer function then who can complain that they no longer have the will to live? While watching the movie Critical Care and analyzing the patience in it the questions were clear. At what point should the doctors and nurses take matters into their own hands and relieve the suffering people from their misery? Is this decision morally wrong for them to take into their own hands? Who should decide; the family members or the ones at the hospital spending their last moments with the patients and see what they are going through? Last of all, to what extent are these decision made? Exactly how much do these decisions depend on what the financial status of the family is? These questions are heavy questions, but often they are presented to individuals that are in the health care business and can prove to carry quite a heavy load.

In the movie Critical Care there was one patient in particular that caught my attention. This was the patient played by Jeffery Wright. In this movie Wright’s character had rejected three kidney transplants and he did not want to live anymore. The nurse let him go and as he went she told him she loved him. When a person gets to that point in their lives when they truly believe they will never get better then they more than likely won’t. It takes will power from the person that is sick to get better and if one has given up then they should be able to make the decision of when they would like to go on. “Some Thai Buddhists recognize that there is a real moral distinction between "letting die" or allowing a patient to die and directly and intentionally taking life. For them, allowing a patient to die does not violate the precept and is considered an altruistic action for those involved” (Chaicharoen).

Naturally, there are pros and cons to these mercy killings. Some of the pros would be that it provides a way to relieve a person of their pain, it frees up medical funds for other people, and its about freedom of choice whether you want to live or die. Some of the cons to this is that it devalues human life, medical physicians will be directly involved with the deaths and it may cause a “slippery slope” effect (Kishore). After weighing the good and the bad the question still remains, who should be the one to decide what course of action to take? For example, in Critical Care Wright’s family wanted to keep him alive, but Wright wanted to die. Wright’s parents only saw that they wanted him better while the nurse of staff saw all his pain and suffering. A person may belong to their family in a sense, but that decision should be made by someone that knows the chances of their patients and sees exactly what the person is going through. If a person asks to die because they are through with the suffering and their chances of survival is next to impossible then that should be their choice. With this choice, naturally, comes great burden and responsibility. Thinking back on one of the pros mentioned before that these mercy killings can free up medical funds for other people this can potentially be a con too.

According to the U.S. Census in 2008 there was 355.5 billion dollars spend out of pockets of citizens for healthcare. According to Maggie Fox over 40 million people in the U.S. today cannot afford health insurance. This poses a problem with families that are not able to afford the care that their loved ones needs. It is a disturbing thought to think about how much statistics like these weigh into the decisions of whether to keep a human alive or let them go.

There are many different things to consider when faced with a decision to let someone go or continue try to keep them alive. Every case will be different and have different questions to ask. If the person is able to make that decision for them then their opinions should be heard. My dad was in a coma for over a month, my mom ended up letting him go because there was no hope he would ever come back out of it if he lived. I don’t blame my mom for making that decision, and I stand by her. I care more about my dad’s opinion than the selfish desires to be able to see him. When someone is ready to go they should be able to go. The family should know that person well enough to know what they would want for themselves and the decision should be made based on that if the patient cannot speak for themselves. Doctors should be involved in this decision too because they are the professionals and they see what the patients are going through. No one should be forced to live in a miserable state for the comfort of others.

Works Cited

Chaicharoen, Pitak. " Letting-Go or Killing: Thai Buddhist Perspectives on Euthanasia." Eubios Ethics

Institute. 1998. Eubios Ethics Institute. 29 Jun 2009 .

Kishore, Dr. Lalit. "Mercy killing: Pros and cons ." Merinews. 14 Dec 2008. Merinews. 29 Jun 2009 .

United States Census Bureau, "Personal Health Care Expenditure Projections by Source of Funds." U.S. Census 2000. 2008. United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. 29 Jun 2009 y.html>.

Fox, Maggie. "Over 40 million in U.S. can't afford health care: report." Reuters. 03 Dec 2007. Reuters. 29 Jun 2009 .