Old people with dementia have a duty to die ??

I thought the article about Baroness Warnock's opinion on people with dementia was somewhat shocking. It seems downright ignorant and disrespectful to brush these people aside as if they don't deserve to live just as much as the rest of us do. I believe that if someone who has a terminal condition (i.e. has no more than 6 months or so to live) is truly suffering and consciously chooses to end their misery, then it is their right to do so. But, in most cases, people living with dimentia are not suffering to a debilitating extent and are fully capable of living rewarding and fulfilling lives. I don't think it would be morally ethical to "push" someone toward physician-assisted suicide, or sway their personal opinion in any way. It is very interesting that an influential figure has such a strong and open opinion toward consciously killing people before their actual time to go arrives. It minimizes the self-worth and autonomy of people suffering with the disease, as well as their families.

Do Doctors Really Follow Codes of Ethics?

There is an interesting article posted on "in the news" on blackboard, discussing codes of ethics and different cultures' use of them. Apparently, few doctors worldwide actually abide by their country's codes of ethics and many do not feel that they have that large of an influence on their practice. It's scary to hear this because if there is no standard to follow when practicing medicine, what are these doctors actually going by? Their gut? The influence of other doctors? What the patient wants/what the family wants? Who knows! The article points out that doctors do know that codes of ethics exist, but they often still fail to refer to them. Potentially, they are not effective in real-life practice, but why, then, has no one said anything? Why have they not been amended to fit the standards of today's technology and healthcare? The article goes on to discuss different cultural values and what or whom is ranked as a top priority for doctors. In the US, the individual patient is viewed as his or her own entity, entitled to make 100% of their own decisions in any situation. Patient autonomy is placed at very high value among all medical professionals (or at least, should be). In contrast, many other countries feel that the family should make important decisions for the patient. The article says, "A Confucian doctor practicing in Canada may speak to the family instead on the individual," and goes on to explain that a concept we (in the US) may find unethical is completely acceptable in many other societies. Abortion, for example, is accepted in other cultures because they believe that a child doesn't take their first breath until they are born. It is very interesting to read about the values and norms in other countries/cultures and comparing them with the underlying beliefs and perspectives in the US.

Psychological Association's Ethics Code Being Broken?

The American Psychological Association's code of ethics states that "Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm." An interesting article from the Boston Globe questions if psychologists assisting interrogation at Guantanamo Bay are potentially breaking that promise. The camp has been known to torture detainees and use controversial methods of punishment such as depriving them of sleep along with degrading them through a number of other treatments. Because of this, many professionals are openly against all psychologists assisting in anything to do with the camp. Some have blamed the APA for not "taking a firmer stance and punishing association members who have helped interrogators," and in the soon-to-come vote for new leadership, members are anxious to see how the new president handles the situation. Many hope to end all partnerships with Guantanamo in the near future and enforce a resolution to ban psychologists from working in such facilities. I found this article interesting because it discusses a professional association's code of ethics and how certain statements may be interpreted differently depending on the party reading it. To some, they may believe they are helping by assisting in interrogating prisoners. On the other hand, it seems somewhat barbaric to resort to torturous methods of punishment. Afterall, the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are enough of a punishment alone, and the detainees are still people at the end of the day. They too have the right to live life without being put intentionally in harm's way.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/08/30/psychologists_and_torture/

Dr.'s Licence Revoked

I recently read an interesting article examining a bioethics dilemma in the medical world. In Canada, an unnamed physician had his certification taken away when evidence of a psychiatric illness had come out. Upon being asked to provide documentation of his patients, he refused to cooperate to save his own reputation and even dignity. Because he was deemed incapable or unfit to continue to practice medicine, many people believed it was the patients' right to know if they had been treated by this particular physician (perhaps to ensure there was no malpractice or mistakes in treatment previous to his diagnosis). At the same time, there is the other side of the argument, that this man as well has rights, and he should be able to keep his personal life private from public embarrassment. He already had to pay over $20,000 to cover investigations, shouldn't he at least be entitled to keep his dignity? But; if you were the patient and had been treated by a so-called "incompetent" doctor, wouldn't you feel entitled to at least knowing what was going on? I think this is a very pertinent issue in today's society because it could really happen to any of us. I personally believe that in this case, the patients' rights should take precedent. If mistakes in practice had been made by this doctor prior to his discovered mental illness, there may be patients who need corrective treatment or it's possible that things could get even worse in the future. Tough call!