Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: bioethics
Description
Advocacy groups work across many aspects of “death with dignity” practice and treatment, and provide insight across multiple aspects of “death with dignity”. This study argues that key advocacy groups in the American death with dignity movement influenced the broader conceptualization of death with dignity in a way that makes patients more able to achieve it. This influence has been a dynamic process across different periods of practice starting the discussion of “death with dignity” in 1985 through today, although this thesis extends only to 2011. The question in this study is how do the three main historical advocacy groups in the US: the Hemlock Society, Compassion in Dying, and Compassion and Choices, conceptualize death with dignity with regards to patient and doctor relationship, legal and policy factors, and medical technologies and protocols? This study found that the Hemlock Society (1980-2005) characterized death with dignity as a terminally ill patient being able to “self-deliver” from suffering via autoeuthanasia regardless of medical community approval or legality. Compassion in Dying (1993-2007) characterized death with dignity as involved advocacy work with terminal patients and their communities to pursue palliative care and hospice up to the point of assisted death. This organization was also involved in the passing of Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Compassion and Choices (2007-present) characterized death with dignity similarly to Compassion in Dying but also advocated for adequate management of pain and suffering symptoms in palliative care to prevent people from desiring death over the illness. Conceptualizing death with dignity is important for understanding why patients want death with dignity and better accommodating their end of life needs when they are suffering with terminal illness.
ContributorsCohan, Hailey Elizabeth (Author) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / O'Neil, Erica (Committee member) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
While there is extensive information available about organizations that receive donated organs for transplant, much less is known about those that accept tissue and whole bodies for medical education and research. Throughout the United States, nontransplant anatomical donation organizations exist within an ambiguous sector of the donation industry, unencumbered by federal regulations. Although these companies adhere to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the lack of a single entity responsible for overseeing their operations has led to public skepticism and animosity among competing businesses. Legislation has the potential to legitimize the industry. For it to be successful, however, the intricacies of a complex market that deals directly with the movement of human remains and intangible issues of human integrity and morality, must be thoroughly understood.
ContributorsGlynn, Emily Sanders (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Fisher, Rebecca (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Nutrition and Health Promotion (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Death with Dignity is a concept that initially began as a set of philosophical and ethical principles that sought to define what it meant to die a "good" death that was reasonable to the person experiencing the dying process. This dying process is terminal illness, or any condition that cannot be cured and who's ultimate prognosis is death. Today, Death with Dignity still embodies this, but it is also a set of legal and medical treatments and practices that can be used to aid terminal patients in accomplishing a "good" death. The Death with Dignity treatment options that are chiefly discussed in this study are patient withdrawal of care, patient control of pain medications, and physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the US excluding Arizona. Considering that Oregon is the first state to pass a Death with Dignity Act and that it is the precedent for all other Acts, this study sought to understand the differences in perception of physician-assisted suicide between Arizona and Oregon in the pursuit of clarifying what barriers are still in place in Arizona to passing a Death with Dignity act. To ask the question of "Do physicians and ethics committee members in Arizona support Death with Dignity in the forms of patient control of pain medications, withdrawal of treatment, and physician-assisted suicide?", a literature review was conducted to determine important national and local perceptions of physician-assisted suicide and Death with Dignity, a 14-question, structured survey was created with the identified concerns, and it was distributed to Arizona health care workers by email and in person. This survey was approved by ASU's Institutional Review Board. This survey found that 100% of participants would vote for a Death with Dignity Act in Arizona if it were on a ballot measure. 76% of participants would aid a terminally-ill and eligible patient in physician-assisted suicide under some circumstances if it were legal in Arizona, and 24% of participants would never aid a patient in physician-assisted suicide. The concerns with physician-assisted suicide that were marked most important by Arizona healthcare workers were that hospice is a better option for the terminally ill and that physician-assisted suicide may be misused with disadvantaged persons. The most important factors of terminal illness that influence views of physician-assisted suicide marked by Arizona healthcare workers were the amount of pain the patient is expected to experience in the end of life, the amount of pain that can be relieved for the patient, the expected quality of life of the patient, and the patient's right to autonomy in healthcare. The significant differences between Oregon and Arizona in this study were the importance of expected mental decline of patient, patient's wishes that differ from family's, and hospice being a better option than suicide in influencing views of physician-assisted suicide. These differences could be deemed hurdles to Death with Dignity legislation in Arizona. This study recommended addressing those differences in public education and medical education and seeking Death with Dignity legislation via ballot measure.
ContributorsCohan, Hailey Elizabeth (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / Stevenson, Christine (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor, Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
American Indian literature is replete with language that refers to broken or hollow promises the US government has made to American Indians, one of the most prominent being that the US government has not kept its promises regarding health services for American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN). Some commenters refer to treaties between tribes and the US government as the origin of the promise for health services to AI/AN. Others point to the trust relationship between the sovereign nations of American Indian tribes and the US government, while still others assert that the Snyder Act of 1921 or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) contained the promise for health care. While the US has provided some form of health care for AI/AN since the country was in its infancy, and continues to do so through the Indian Health Service, the promise of health services for AI/AN is not explicit.
Philosophers have articulated that a promise contains a moral obligation to fulfill it because of others’ expectations created by that promise. As the US government made its first promises in early treaties with AI/AN tribes and subsequently made promises in the years since, it is morally obligated to fulfill those promises, be they lying promises or not, because of resulting expectations. Yet, the US government has historically acted to restrict the rights of AI/AN—rights that include access to health services—through assimilation, separation, or termination policies. Further, the policies of the US government have kept the AI/AN populations socioeconomically impoverished, dependent on the US government for basic needs, and susceptible to health-compromising conditions.
Using case studies, this dissertation looks not only at the policies and events that directly affected health services and health status, but also at how those policies and events contributed to health outcomes and the expectations of AI/AN. Given the history of the US government in fulfilling (or not fulfilling) its promises, this dissertation examines the expectations of AI/AN for their own future health outcomes under the policy of self-governance.
Philosophers have articulated that a promise contains a moral obligation to fulfill it because of others’ expectations created by that promise. As the US government made its first promises in early treaties with AI/AN tribes and subsequently made promises in the years since, it is morally obligated to fulfill those promises, be they lying promises or not, because of resulting expectations. Yet, the US government has historically acted to restrict the rights of AI/AN—rights that include access to health services—through assimilation, separation, or termination policies. Further, the policies of the US government have kept the AI/AN populations socioeconomically impoverished, dependent on the US government for basic needs, and susceptible to health-compromising conditions.
Using case studies, this dissertation looks not only at the policies and events that directly affected health services and health status, but also at how those policies and events contributed to health outcomes and the expectations of AI/AN. Given the history of the US government in fulfilling (or not fulfilling) its promises, this dissertation examines the expectations of AI/AN for their own future health outcomes under the policy of self-governance.
ContributorsDrago, Mary (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Herkert, Joseph (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James (Committee member) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Trujillo, Michael (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
In 2004, the South Korean geneticist Woo-Suk Hwang published what was widely regarded as the most important research result in biotechnology of the year. In the prestigious American journal Science, he claimed that he had succeeded in cloning a human blastocyst, an embryo in its early stages (Hwang et al. 2004). A year later, in a second Science article, he made the earth-shattering announcement that he had derived eleven embryonic stem cell lines using his cloning technique (Hwang et al. 2005). The international scientific community was stunned. American scientists publicly fretted that President George W. Bush‘s 2001 executive order limiting federal funding for stem-cell research in the United States had put American bioscience behind the Koreans‘ (Paarlberg 2005). These breakthroughs offered potential solutions to immune system rejection of transplanted organs and possible cures for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson‘s, Down‘s syndrome, and paralysis (Svenaeus 2007). However, within a year, Hwang was exposed as a fraud who had faked his results and pressured his female colleagues to donate eggs without informed consent. Despite protests against his methods from Korean religious and nongovernmental organizations, Hwang had used his prestige to ignore his ethical obligations. The Korean government, too, was slow to investigate Hwang and to subject his work to appropriate regulation.
ContributorsClay, Anne (Author) / Hurlbut, James (Thesis director) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Marchant, Gary (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2012-12
Description
Writing speculative fiction is a valuable method for exploring the potential societal transformations elicited by advances in science and technology. The aim of this project is to use speculative fiction to explore the potential consequences of precision medicine for individuals’ daily lives. Precision medicine is a vision of the future in which medicine is about predicting, and ultimately preventing disease before symptoms arise. The idea is that identification of all the factors that influence health and contribute to disease development will translate to better and less expensive healthcare and empower individuals to take responsibility for maintaining their own health and wellness. That future, as envisioned by the leaders of the Human Genome Project, the Institute for Systems Biology, and the Obama administration’s Precision Medicine Initiative, is assumed to be a shared future, one that everyone desires and that is self-evidently “better” than the present. The aim of writing speculative fiction about a “precision medicine” future is to challenge that assumption, to make clear the values underpinning that vision of precision medicine, and to leave open the question of what other possible futures could be imagined instead.
ContributorsVenkatraman, Richa (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Hurlbut, James (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022