Code of Ethics

Phi2635 F14 Biomedical Ethics

Professor: Ivana Simic
September 21, 2014
Group 1
ANGELETTE DANIELS

1.3
Consult the textbook, chapter 3. Write a coherent document in which you explain how Dr. Quill
differs from Dr. K in his approach to helping dying patients? Are any of these approaches morally
objectionable, in your view? Support your view with reasons.

One of the most controversial dilemmas in the US is Physician-Assisted Suicide, the legal
and Practical Contours. The very act of allowing a patient to die from an underlying terminal
illness can be fundamentally defined as inhuman than right. Even indifferent, yet do the
terminally ill have a right to choose or request a Physician to assist in their plea or right to die?
Is this act morally right since a Physician has to by law save lives rather than take a life? When
did Euthanasia become a justifiably ethical belief? Who or What case is deemed more special
than another? More importantly, does the Law uphold these Mercy Killings, or should euthanasia
physician assisted suicide be legal? How is Dr Quill patients any different from patients Dr.
Kevorkian has assisted? Are any of these approaches morally objectionable?
In the State of Florida, The Supreme Court upholds a state law banning physicianassisted suicide, endorsing a 129-year-old state law in a 5-to-1 decision. A privacy provision in
the states constitution does not extend to assisted suicide by physician, although the court has
previously ruled that a patient does have the right to refuse medical treatment even if this
decision causes an adverse effect such as death. The court did however make a statement that
implies that the possibility that the legislature could develop a carefully crafted assistedsuicide law that would be constitutional. (Times, New York, (1997).
According to Medical Ethics, Dr. Timothy Quill is an internist and a professor at the
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Quill, then 41, described in The New
England Journal of Medicine how he had helped "Diane," a terminally ill cancer patient,

barbiturates that eventually enabled her to take her own life. Though a Rochester, N.Y., grand
jury refused to indict him at the time, Quill was a lead plaintiff in a case challenging New York's
assisted suicide ban. In the mean time, Dr Quill and a colleague co wrote a book in which they
use the term physician-assisted dying they believe that this is descriptively accurate and carries
merit with no misleading connotations (Pence, G.E. (2001).
On the other hand according to medical ethics, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist,
in my opinion apparently was awed with the moments of his kitchen built machine
(MERCITRON). Dr. K, then 63 assisted his first suicide which involved the death of Jane
Adkins, 54, who in 1990 suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She ultimately died in Dr.
Kevorkian's Volkswagen van in Groveland Oaks Park near Holly, Michigan. The cocktail
mixture rendered Adkins unconscious she then died a minute later. Dr. K, who has little to no
experience as an end of life caretaker, stated that Adkins died of a painless heart attack. Dr. K
was charged with the murder of Adkins yet; the conviction was overturned by a MICHIGAN
JUDGE (Pence, G.E. (2001).
How Dr. Quill differs from Dr. K in his approach to helping dying patients is everything.
First of all, Dr Quill had a commitment with Diane and was very knowledgeable about the death
and dying process. He knew her (Diane) very well; therefore, Dr Quill made a careful decision
about his assessment to make sure that she had good access to hospice and palliative care if she
so desired. However because she was competent; he privately and discreetly assisted her death
without void all the while accounting for every detail in a medical forum unlike Kevorkian,
these kinds of things just didnt exist for him. He became a frequent silent killer without
knowing any of his victims well; he had absolutely no experience at all in the end-of-life care,
nor chose too. For Christs sake, he was a pathologist; therefore he didnt have any skills in pain

management or psychological evaluation. I believe that Dr K had become caught up with the
moments of death and the machines of death (Pence, G.E. (2001).
Are any of these approaches morally objectionable? Yes, I believe they are all morally
objectionable, for Euthanasia is somewhat easy to grasp: Just Dont Commit to Assist, for it is
not morally or ethically sane. In our society, traditionally our moral obligation is to care for our
own life and health and to care from others, for this is why I chose the field of HEALTH to take
care of others; OTHERS TOO SHOULD recognize that we are not morally obligated to use all
the available medical procedures. So it behooves a terminally ill patient to have a last will and
testament to save the drama of a dilemma of unmoral character or irrational decisions. Although
people make these life and death decisions in secret ALL THE TIME, those patients have a right
to choose whether to accept AN ALTERNATIZE METHOD. In other words, once the physician
makes sure the patient has signed the informed consent and is acting autonomously, they really
have that right. For again, I believe that our greatest freedom is to live, and thus die.
According to the American Medical Associations Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs,
physicians may intend to save lives to relieve pain associated with an illness and suffering,
however they are not to purpose within themselves to assist in the death of their patients
(www.ama-assn.org/ama).
According to Family Research Council (FRC), its believes that every human life has
DEEP-ROOTED dignity, and that it is unethical to deliberately end the life of a suffering person
by via (euthanasia), or to assist enable another person to end their life via (assisted suicide)...
available at www.frc.org

Accordingly, the Hippocratic Oath has two dimensions, one is to preserve life and the
other is to relieve human suffering. Thus, physicians should try to do both. However, in end-oflife care they can take relief of suffering as their priority, and may use methods that may shorten
life. Therefore, the patients has a sense of who they are and what's important in life as they have
chosen to die with dignity; The Hippocratic Oath also exemplifies the dignity of trust in the
relationship between physician and patient. Thus it in-turn obligates the physician to give no
harmful or lethal agents; the Hippocratic Oath is considered the cornerstone of medical ethics
(Pence, G.E. (2001).
Finally, always tell the truth for the truth shall set you free; therefore, please just abide by
the Appropriate Professional Code of Conduct.

References
(AMA 2014) American Medical Association: American Medical Journal of Ethics retrieved
September 16, 2014 from (www.ama-assn.org/ama).

Pence, G.E. (2001), Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases, Sixth Edition by
McGraw Hill

Times, New York (1997) Florida High Court Upholds State Ban on Assisted Suicide retrieved
September 16, 2014 from www.nytimes.com/1997/07/18/us/florida-high-court-upholds...

The Family Research Council on its "Human Life and Bioethics" page, available at www.frc.org
Accessed September 16, 2014,