Do you agree that individual states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on or waiting periods for abortions?
Do you agree that individual states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on or waiting periods for abortions? Who should determine what is reasonable?
OR
Examine the legal and ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide.
Verified Answer
Do you agree that individual states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on or waiting periods for abortions? Who should determine what is reasonable?
Both of the discussion topics available are things that I feel very strongly about so it is hard to decide which to address. However, because I was placed in a situation today in relation to abortion, I will go with that scenario. My experience today was someone of childbearing years who was coming in for an elective surgery. This person had agreed to take a pregnancy test upon arrival to the hospital. It just so happened that this test came back positive and her surgery was cancelled.
She was furious and wanted to know when the soonest she could get in to have said surgery after an abortion. In my eyes this was a knee jerk reaction. She was upset, wanted to have this surgery, but cannot due to pregnancy. Her solution was to end the pregnancy and have surgery. In this specific situation a waiting period might change her mind on what she wants.
Waiting periods are designed to allow for reflection on the decision and to minimize regret. In fact, the cognitive processing needed for these important decisions takes place relatively rapidly. Clinicians are used to handling cases individually and tailoring care appropriately, including giving more time for decision-making (Rowlands & Thomas, 2020).
However, it might not change their mind and that is not a choice I get to make for her. In my eyes, everyone gets to make decisions about their own care. I want the right to choice what treatments I undergo, who my physician is, what medications I put into my body, and so on. So, I want the same for everyone else.
Sadly, I do think that reactive decisions are made sometimes, without allowing oneself time to process information and those choices can be made out of emotion instead of logic. It is similar to the candy placed in the checkout lines at grocery stores. It is not an item you would have bought if it was not strategically placed where you have to pay for your other items. They are called impulse aisles for a reason.
Allowing each state to create their own rules and regulations seems reasonable to me. I stand behind smaller government because I feel as though it can be more effective. I have worked at a large corporate hospital and several smaller hospitals and making improvements is so much more seamless at a smaller facility. I think it is the same with government, the more people involved the harder it is to create a plan and put that plan into action.
To me allowing each state to have this control is no different than allowing each state to set their own speed limits, fines for littering, driver’s license requirements, labor laws, etc. The governing body of each state should be who is in charge of putting these regulations in place. These are the individuals we have elected to represent our needs as a state, they are the people who act as our voice on topics like these. That being said, I think they should allow for input from people throughout their state prior to setting anything in stone.
References
Rowlands, S., & Thomas, K. (2020, July 31). Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice. Retrieved from National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402852/
Examine the legal and ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide
Physician-assisted suicide, also known as assisted dying or aid-in-dying, refers to the practice of a physician providing a patient with the means to end their own life, typically through the prescription of a lethal dose of medication (Pozgar, 2020). This practice is legal in a number of countries and states around the world, but it remains a controversial and highly debated topic.
There are a number of legal and ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide. In many jurisdictions, physician-assisted suicide is illegal, and physicians who participate in assisted dying may face criminal charges (Pozgar, 2020). In jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, there are often strict legal requirements and procedures that must be followed in order to ensure that the patient’s decision is voluntary and informed.
There are also ethical complications with the process and can affect the general perception of the healthcare sector (Pozgar, 2020). Many people believe that assisted dying is a violation of the medical profession’s ethical obligation to preserve life and that it undermines the trust and respect that should exist between doctors and patients.
Others argue that assisted dying is a compassionate and humane way to provide relief to patients who are suffering from terminal or incurable conditions and that it is a fundamental right for individuals to be able to make decisions about their own end-of-life care (Pozgar, 2020). Additionally, there are ethical and legal concerns that physician-assisted suicide may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as those who are low-income, elderly, or disabled, and that it may be used as a substitute for proper palliative care.
Reference
Pozgar, G. D. (2020). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett. ISBN: 9781284144185.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and get fast, cheap and best quality work written by our expert level assignment writers.
Limited Offer: Get 30% OFF Your First Order
