Interviewing Spiritual leader
Interviewing Spiritual leader
Order Instructions:
Refer to the “Collaborative Learning Community: Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma” resource for the dilemmas and resources that will be used for this multi-part Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma assignment. Part Two is an individual assignment that will also be used in Part Three, the culiminating paper.
For this individual assignment, interview a hospital administrator, a spiritual leader, a health care colleague, or a neighbor/friend.
Individually, you only need to interview one person, but your CLC group must have representation from four different individuals and perspectives to complete Part Three of the Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma assignment.
Students should discuss within their CLC group to determine who will be responsible for interviewing the hospital administrator, the spiritual leader, the health care colleague, and the neighbor/friend to make sure all roles are covered.
In your interview, ask about the individual’s philosophy and worldview in relation to the ethical dilemma your CLC group chose for Part One of the Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma group assignment. Craft a 250-500 word summary of the individual’s response, including the individual’s identified philsophy and worldview.
APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
You are not required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.
NRS437V.CLCAnalysisofanEthical Dilemma_11-24-14.docx
The Terry Schiavo Documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cki55BM42kw
This is a multi-part assignment spanning Topics 4 and 5 in the course.
Part One is a group assignment. Group members will select one of the dilemmas listed above and write a 750-1,000-word paper. Please review the full paper criteria listed in the assignment description in LoudCloud.
Part Two is an individual assignment in which students will conduct an interview about the ethical dilemma with a hospital administrator, a spiritual leader, a health care colleague, and a neighbor/friend. Although the work is done individually, the interview responses are used in Part Three. Students should discuss within their CLC group to determine who will be responsible for interviewing the hospital administrator, the spiritual leader, the health care colleague, and the neighbor/friend. Please review the full interview criteria listed in the assignment description in LoudCloud.
Part Three is the culminating submission for the multi-part assignment. The group will write a 750-1,000-word paper with a resolution to the ethical dilemma. The paper will incorporate interview responses from the individual work done in Part II and the group’s research. Please review the full paper criteria listed in the assignment description in LoudCloud.
SAMPLE ANSWER
Interviewing Spiritual leader
The modern healthcare providers are faced by ethical dilemma issues during their daily practice. This is especially because they are bound by the ethical principles of delivering care. One of the healthcare issues that have remained controversial from decade to decade is the assisted euthanasia. Euthanasia refers to act of letting the patient die intentionally, by injecting them with lethal drug. This is also commonly referred to as dying with dignity. There are various forms of euthanasia including the voluntary euthanasia- where the patient requests with informed consent the physician to end his or her life (Baeke, Wils & Broeckaert, 2011).
The non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the euthanasia that is requested by the appropriate person associated with the patient in their end of life stages, especially if the patient is in a coma, minor, brain is under severe damage or is totally mentally challenged. The assisted euthanasia which occurs in two forms- active euthanasia where the patient death is intentionally caused by injecting the patient with a lethal injection and passive euthanasia where the patient death is caused by withholding the patient general and ordinary care such as food, medicine and water (van Ittersum & Hendriks, 2012).
This issue positions range of reaction in the society such as enthusiastic advocacy, outright rejection, and increased condemnation. For this reason, I interviewed a spiritual leader (Christian) from the local community in order to identify and understand their instincts and perspectives about assisted euthanasia. During this interview, I asked five questions about religious perspectives about euthanasia. The interview took place at the Spiritual leader chapel (name of the leader and church withheld purposely to maintain confidentiality and privacy of the participant) at 1345hrs. The interview took approximately 45 minutes. The following questions were asked;
- 1 What do you understand the term euthanasia?
From my perspective, euthanasia refers to the process of deliberately ending person’s life. I know there are various forms of euthanasia including voluntary, assisted and non-voluntary.
Q.2 Is euthanasia justifiable and should it be legalized?
My faith does not support euthanasia, it is not justifiable nor should it be legalised.
- 3 When is death good or justifiable?
In Genesis 1, we were created by God in his own image. We were given the mandate to be fruitful and rule over the earth. Ruling in these concepts is the confusing part especially when confronted by the ethical discussion. Although we are encouraged to take charge of our responsibility, who are we to decide how we prefer our death? Is there tome when a person becomes useless or seem to outlive their life? How do we measure or evaluate the appropriate time for a person to die. This is God’s responsibility to know when to end life and bring forth life.
Q4. As you have said, our life is in God’s hands, then isn’t it a sin to extend patient’s life regardless of their condition beyond the God’s designated time? Thus, isn’t prolonging life a sin and equal measure as assisted euthanasia?
From my religious background, God has our plan in life and we have not known when we die. Without this knowledge, then I will be judgmental to say that someone’s life is prolonged or not. Most of the patient who die, don’t they receive equal amount of care in terms of quality and efficiency as those who survive, yet they don’t because their designated time has been reached. However, willingly causing death to a person is a sin. God commanded us to be our brother’s keeper.
Q.5 what are your final sentiments about this issue?
Philosophers and healthcare providers have been trained to respect patient dignity and autonomy. Within the same principles, they still define the importance of doing no harm and providing justice to the patient. In this context, I trust that the healthcare providers must do what is morally upright and ethical.
Lastly, I am guided by the scriptures in the old testaments, the sixth commandments of the ten commandment “Thou shalt not commit murder” These scriptures is absolute as it allows killings during martyrdom, self-defence, wars and capital punishment. Thus, I believe whether the patient requests or does not, assisted euthanasia can be equated to murder. With this increased support of euthanasia, I cannot help but wonder if Hippocrates oath still pivotal in health care as it used to before?
Summary
From this analysis, it is evident that Christianity does not condone euthanasia. This is because they believe that life is a sacred entity and that only God giveth and taketh. According to their doctrines, one thing is evident that life belongs to God. Christianity is against the notion of valuing persons usefulness based on their lives. This is discrimination as there is no standard measure that can be used to determine the value of human life. If human functionality is important, how about the mentally ill persons, the retarded, criminals or even the trouble makers- do they still deserve to live (Dierckx de Casterlé, Denier, De Bal & Gastmans, 2010)?
The church principles reject deliberate cause of death of the terminally ill patient. It does not bring the suffering to an end, but rather it is contrary to God’s law. Life is a gift we have from God and thus must be cherished. Therefore, the primary intent of our knowledge is to seek ways that will minimize patient suffering, sustain and enhance it, not to destroy life of other people. Additionally, death is an integral part of life’s cycle. Through this cycle, death must be accepted as inevitable. Until then, the optimal palliative care must be given to the patient regardless of the patient socioeconomic status, age or even the social circumstances (Halman & van Ingen, 2015).
Additionally, people’s life must be respected and they must never be made to think that they are burden or that it is their duty to die or they have to make measures to ensure that they die. Condoning with deliberate killing for the most vulnerable people is supporting inhumane activity and poses ethical risk to our community. In this regard, it is the church responsibility to urge the government to show their commitment to the people’s life, and consider other alternatives that can substitute euthanasia (Ping-cheung, 2010).
References
Baeke, G., Wils, J., & Broeckaert, B. (2011). ‘There is a Time to be Born and a Time to Die’ (Ecclesiastes 3:2a): Jewish Perspectives on Euthanasia. Journal Of Religion And Health, 50(4), 778-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10943-011-9465-9
Dierckx de Casterlé, B., Denier, Y., De Bal, N., & Gastmans, C. (2010). Nursing care for patients requesting euthanasia in general hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 66(11), 2410-2420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05401.x
Halman, L., & van Ingen, E. (2015). Secularization and Changing Moral Views: European Trends in Church Attendance and Views on Homosexuality, Divorce, Abortion, and Euthanasia. European Sociological Review, 31(5), 616-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv064
Ping-cheung, L. (2010). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide from Confucian Moral Perspectives. Dao, 9(1), 53-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11712-009-9147-4
van Ittersum, F., & Hendriks, L. (2012). Organ Donation after Euthanasia. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 12(3), 431-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201212326
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is defined as the intentional administration of drugs that are lethal with the intention of terminating person’s life in a painless manner; to relieve patient from continued suffering from an chronic and incurable condition which that is unbearable. There are three types of euthanasia; a) voluntary euthanasia- which refers to euthanasia conducted upon patient requests; b) Non- voluntary euthanasia- which refers to euthanasia performed but not from patient wish/ request and c) Physician assisted suicide- where the physician willing and knowingly terminates patient life at the patient request (Dierckx de Casterlé, Denier, De Bal & Gastmans, 2010).
Impact on nursing practice, social values, morals, and norms
For example, in nursing profession, there is the issue of trust, i.e. the patient should trust the nurse that he or she will not be killed by the nurse. In this context, euthanasia concepts develop the dimension of suspicion that conflicts with the nurse roles as healer and comforter (Sharp, 2012). On the other hand, the patient expects the nurses to be their advocates, thus, institutions that co-opt euthanasia in their policy could cause the rise of the concept of distrust due to the interrupted confidence in relationship between the service user and the service provider (Quaghebeur, Dierckx de Casterle & Gastmans, 2009).
The integrity of nurses should never be used mainly to meet the patient goals i.e. patient wishes to die. Although utilitarian theory supports this practice, it is against the nurse moral and professional dignity for the nurses. Although involvement of the nurses in executing euthanasia adversely affect the society faith as well as trust in nursing practice; it is in line with the nurses professional responsibility of protecting human dignity, caring and promoting as well as protecting patient interest. Thus it can be said it is compatible with nursing practice (Salladay, 2015).
Ethical theory and principle
The dialogue between Dax Cowart and Robert Burt is paradoxical and somewhat disturbing. On one hand, there is Dax whose storyline begins from gas explosion that caused injuries that caused him involuntary rehabilitation and treatment. After treatment, he faced seven years of severe depression with unsuccessful suicidal attempts. Through the dialogue, it is evident that Dax remained adamant that he was treated with just as his requests were denied. Dr. Burt is an expert in biomedical ethics as well as the constitutional law. Within the debate, Dr. Burt stance on how Dax was treated is paternalist. His arguments are that patients who are suffering may not reject treatment so as to end their lives.
The core concept from this dialogue is patient’s autonomy. Dax forceful administrations of treatments and physicians practices were immoral; which made him feel that his autonomy is compromised. On the other hand, Burt argues that doctor’s interventions and rejection of Dax’s requests were acceptable. The dialogue between the two continues to revolve around the ideal course of action. However later, both men agree that interaction between the patient and the healthcare provider, with Burt positing that such conversations should be prolonged as much as possible or atleast when the patient reluctantly admit or when the physicians have exhausted all alternative options. However, Dax pursues the objection o of the idea posing the question on what time would be appropriate for the physician to comply with patient’s issues. This evokes an issue that there lacks appropriate time to for such decisions. In this case, the patient should willingly allow the physician have indefinite time to search for opitions, while they undergo pain and suffering is unjust.
From the Dax and Burt dialogue, the basic medical ethical principles are evident. These include non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and beneficence. For instance, the nurses are obliged to respect for the patient autonomy. This justifies the issue of euthanasia, as the nursing professional ethics indicates that patient’s autonomy must be respected. The patient request on their private life must be respected by the physician, government and the nurses. The lack of empathy and justice are some of the key concerns that he had with the medical team, which I believe was a basic flaw of the healthcare system. Therefore, the nurses must never feel guilty when undertaking these tasks as it is respecting autonomous (Salladay, 2015).
The critics that arise in this context include the fact that these practices have little respect to empathy and autonomy of the patient family and relatives. This is evidenced by the case study of Terri Schiavo. This case study involved numerous motions, hearings and petitions in the courts. In this context, I would argue that a patient autonomy is not vital if it erases all the importance of the community social paradigm. Life is a valued paradigm in the society. What is patient autonomy if the patient does not enjoy his/her autonomy? Is euthanasia an indication that the healthcare providers are unable to deal with death(Sharp, 2012)?
Rejection of euthanasia is mainly supported by the nursing ethics principle of non-maleficence. This principle supports the sanctity of life making it difficult to acknowledge euthanasia as ethical practice. Therefore, this principle calls for respect for life. This is also supported by the ethical principle of beneficence delineates the importance of promulgating the legitimate interests of all other people involved. On the other hand, the ethical principle supports in practicing the overall good of the patient, which requires in stating what is medically appropriate for the patient (Quaghebeur, Dierckx de Casterle & Gastmans, 2009). This discussion is peculiar because Terri Schiavo case study hinges on paternalist interpretation of life that all lives are worth living. On the other hand, Burt and Dax dialogue arguments deal with the concept of another person deciding the worth of your life. Obviously, no one understands the feelings and thoughts of the patient who is suffering; therefore, there is no way a person can evaluate the worthiness of another person’s life. Terri Schiavo case study and Dax & Burt arguments discount the suffering and pain of the patient; arguing the sanctity of life; this brings forth the question, “Who chooses, who controls (Salladay, 2015)?
Conclusion
The increased lack of consensus between the nurses on this ethical issue points the importance to analyse the world view and ideologies as well as the nurse’s attitudes and beliefs about assisted euthanasia. Attention should be focused on the role of assisted euthanasia in essence of care by evaluating the evidence based studies. This is especially important because of the specificity nature of the nursing expertise in care, especially in end of life care.
References
Dierckx de Casterlé, B., Denier, Y., De Bal, N., & Gastmans, C. (2010). Nursing care for patients requesting euthanasia in general hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 66(11), 2410-2420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05401.x
Quaghebeur, T., Dierckx de Casterle, B., & Gastmans, C. (2009). Nursing and Euthanasia: a Review of Argument-Based Ethics Literature. Nursing Ethics, 16(4), 466-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969733009104610
Salladay, S. (2015). Ethical Problems. Nursing, 45(2), 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.nurse.0000459548.37627.9a
Sharp, R. (2012). The dangers of euthanasia and dementia: how kantian thinking might be used to support non-voluntary euthanasia in cases of extreme dementia. Bioethics, 26(5), 231-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01951.x
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
