Extraordinary or just lengthen the suffering that
Extraordinary means of treatment
For many years now there have been people who center their lives on giving medical attention to sick patients in need of their care. There have also been many doctors who spend their lives developing techniques to help keep people alive as long as possible, even when the person quite possibly should have died a natural death a long time ago. Does this make what the doctor is doing wrong? Doesn’t the patient deserve a chance to live the longest and fullest life they possibly can?
These questions must be weighed on the benefits of the treatment versus the burden of the treatment. It may prolong life but will it make the life better or just lengthen the suffering that the patient has to go through. These and many other considerations must be taken in account in order to assure the best decision for the patient. Money can also be a factor in extraordinary treatment. Some people can’t afford to have their loved ones in a hospital for very long especially if they are in a coma or other severe illness, and might not be able to afford a long-term hospital bill. Also if there is a very slim chance of success with the procedure it may not be worth trying to save or preserve the life of the patient. Sometimes you may need to take the individual’s opinion on the treatments advice. If they are able to give a competent decision shouldn’t it be used to determine whether or not to go on further with the treatment.
If extraordinary means are not offered and the patient slowly dies, can the doctor just sit and watch and not try and save the patient. Is it not the doctor’s duty to try and save that patient? When a doctor graduates from medical school they take an oath, in this oath they state to preserve all life. So who should they stay true to, should they grand the wishes of the patient even if they are to stop prolonging the life, or should they stay true to the oath they took and preserve the life of the patient.
My view of what are extraordinary means is pretty clear-cut. Anything treatment or machine used to do a job for a human that was once or should be involuntary, such as breathing, or transferring of blood. I also think that in some situations feeding tubes can also be considered extraordinary means or treatment if the patient is comatose or has an illness where they physically cannot swallow.
So this day and age the question is no longer can we save this person, but should we save this person. Is it morally right to do so, or does it infringe on the rights of others and the patient. If we have the technology why not use it to better the lives of those who are in suffering though. But all of this new technology could turn the art of living, into the science of living. But with many other medical procedures, there is no clear-cut right or wrong, there are many factors that can change the circumstances.