End-of-life treatment is sometimes forgotten in the midst of a demanding clinical operation. Notwithstanding aggressive therapy, clinicians must accept that death is unavoidable for many clinical illnesses. The most effective end-of-life treatment begins with an open conversation of illness progress and diagnosis. Terminally ill individuals can gain pain alleviation and other undesirable conditions by organizing their treatment with relatives and a palliative plan, resulting in a better standard of life throughout their remaining moments. End-of-life treatment is an essential issue that has been largely ignored in the previous. Modern healthcare frequently fails to acknowledge the certainty of illness development, notwithstanding vigorous medical therapy in the course of aiming for greater comprehension and therapy of medical disorders. As a result, clinicians are often unable to give proper sustaining treatment to their clients towards the end of their lives.
According to Mary (2008), terminally ill patients are less likely to be considered for medical treatment towards their end of life. Instead of the clinicians offering medical care to terminally ill patients, they claim to assist them with suicide ideation. The terminally ill patients are denied the right to be insured for medical services, which is not ethically acceptable (MICHAEL, 2011). These choices to forgo life-sustaining therapies are often executed only when an agreement is reached by the clinician and healthcare staff and the patients and relatives. Regrettably, in some cases, patient preferences are less relevant than one might assume. Professional preferences may be more important than patient preferences in end-of-life choices. When forgoing treatment is a concern for a patient, physicians nearly invariably make the decision; requests are rarely prompted by the patient, thus resulting in poor quality of medical services offered to them. Notwithstanding being wrong about client desires for resuscitation and extended survival, clinicians frequently offer data based on their personal opinions and wishes, which influences patient choices. They may reach the option since they assume the client will be unable to appreciate the clinical intricacy of the issue or since they assume it is a clinical judgment.
In conclusion, it must be acknowledged and stressed that the scope of client treatment encompasses adequate treatment for chronically ill individuals and preventative care, diagnostic, and therapeutic treatment.
References
Mary J. McClusky. (2008). The price of life. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/end-of-life/euthanasia/the-price-of-life
MICHAEL R. PANICOLA, MARK F. REPENSHEK, DAVID M. BELDE, & JOHN PAUL SLOSAR. (2011). Health care ethics: Theological foundations, contemporary issues, and controversial cases. Catholic Health Association of the United States – CHA.
Leave a Reply