I’m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy.This time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or diseased.Tags: Rules In Making An EssayAssign LeasePolice Academy 2 Their First Assignment 1985Ways To Conclude An Essay In SpanishSolve For X Math ProblemsHow To Write Proposal For ResearchHow To Write Project Paper
It is not as if they are really ‘living’ during this time; they are merely waiting to die.
They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural conclusion" of our actions.
If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably.
Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation.
Some can be cared for at home, or in special hospices.
If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line?
Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway?
I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh!
Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter?
What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life?