Tags

, , , , , , , , ,


 “Dead” should be when the family decides that they don’t want care to be given anymore. Until then, doctors should do everything possible to keep the person alive’.

Very well said, by one commentator at site; but still! This is controversial when we litigate it with controversy in terms of ethics.

This is because no body has ‘right to decide’ the ‘last breath’ of any individual may it be a legitimate relation.

Should I take this decision as prerogative that; ‘we all have rights to award death’ for being under belief of legitimacy hence ‘relation or in terms of consent’?

What if some one with ‘millions in pocket’ living alone succumbs his fate on ventilator and the one as closed relation, say ‘a son with a penny’ decides  his last breath as his prerogative for being his father.

I think we must redesign this ‘system of consent’ under the terms of such scenes of impending death.

This decision of removal at least must have a rational way as ethical law where decision must go through the hands of multiple as experts and as well as relatives and government functionaries.

This would definitely rule out this element of say as ethical or non ethical.

This is a very tragic event to declare ‘dead’ before a person is really ‘dead’.

Actually this is an event where no demarcation between life and death exist.

And this is all because of this advancement.

Infact ‘there is no demarcation at all, between life and death’ but contrary; it seems ‘it’s the process of blending of life with fate as death’.

Without prejudice, as opinion; ‘it is here where religious theme glare as right and righteous’.

I am unable to understand advancement as modalities in medical science.

In my opinion advancement as sophisticated artificial means; has denoted this issue as ethics, to the major extent of share.

Observe the phenomena of putting some one on ventilator and similar phenomenon of removing from ventilator.

What if; ventilators were not there to provide an alternative or assistance to ventilation?

Under such unavailable mode as artificial assistance; demarcation between life and death would have been a premised and defined event.

But this advancement as technology though at one end minimized the ‘hectic engagement’ of clinician to follow patient for recovery but at other end provided him ‘an opportunity to gain little time’ in the name of treatment or ‘procure business’ and as well to ‘prepare relatives towards an event as impending death’ or whatever as outcome.

Putting a patient on ventilator seems and presents more as irrational treatment; which seemingly ‘supports the theme and requirement of business of hospital than in the context of patient welfare’.

This ‘contempt as my opinion’ can only be perceived logical, if at all some one as clinician rationally and ethically ‘contrives and contravene’ it with the ‘concept of justification’.

Here my point is; what frame of time is expectedly or presumably; a presumptive reflection as possible recovery, hence to get a prognostic progress as life from this mode of technique?

In my opinion it has undefined minutes as hours hence weeks or months or years.

Exceptions may be if there is a genuine requirement based on post surgical or acute cases of trauma and etc; which definitely have ‘limitation as time and selection as requirement’ hence as ‘understanding in terms of standardized law as belief’.

A clinician by his skill and experience shall and must judge his patient condition prior to the demand and advice as, artificial assistance.

But if at all he could not manage to define the fate of individual and tenure of his treatment ‘in tame of time under ventilator’; my feel as logic should drag him towards the ‘plateau of malpractice as assumption’.

Since, there seems no justification of putting patient and his family over the ‘cross of burden as charges or bills’ where outcome have already ‘defined and presumed notions’ in terms of interest only.

Why shouldn’t I say here that ‘clinician knows his exact methodology of subjecting of his patient to this treatment?

It is here where ‘ethics demand ethical way’ hence to ‘preserve confidence among people around as relatives and surround as ethicist’.

‘We can not just argue treatment as logical for being an only option or optional or a chance or a desire of attendant’.

‘This is a matter of emotions since life and death and similar facts as fate have troublesome impacts on relatives as relation.’

In my opinion it is this ‘optional or chance legacy’ that is the main hurdle or conflicting point which drags this treatment within the concept of ethics.

It is because of this very same legacy that demands ‘justification of removal’ from the mode.

‘In my opinion, what have been started as option or clinical mode should have a reasonable justification in case of non recovery in terms of removal.’

 ‘This phase as span on ventilator is a terrible period where people around burden their thought in variant theme hence from death to recovery or as many ideas as can be perceived for their patient’.

It is here where ethicist say that “Today, you are dead when the doctor says you are.”


I think we need to sort this issue in terms of ‘laid criteria as limitation and selective textual prohibition as protocol’.

In my opinion ‘this point of putting some one on ventilator for any cause as intent and diagnosis; should have a protocol in which any breach may become or be dragged in to an audit’.

‘Prerequisite for putting on Ventilators should be legislated under medical text as compulsive defined protocol’.

Similarly ‘removal from ventilator must be govern under the head of set of rules as barred days; as decided in terms of text by medical authorities as protocol’.

Where as! ‘Issue of organ donation; should be restricted similarly by protocol, again under medical authority as text by unanimous decision; for only those who are and were never wean or wined through ventilator but rather natural death’.

In my opinion this controversy as ethics in contest of “you are dead man; when doctor says, you are dead” would continue unheard within the ‘deep helpless murmuring of patient, their attendant and humanity’ because; ‘this difference of decision making as per skill and knowledge between these two parties as clinician and patient; would continue to peer as oppressor and suppressor’.

This ‘prerogative of being a clinician will always keep the last breathe under own domain as interest; therefore would and shall always be a reaction as controversial by ethicist or populace’.