A Review of End-of-Life care in the US: The conundrum in the absence of a guiding framework

Usman Haseeb
{"title":"A Review of End-of-Life care in the US: The conundrum in the absence of a guiding framework","authors":"Usman Haseeb","doi":"10.22461/jhea.1.71636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"End-of-life care is a topic that many consider to be an uncomfortable one given its emotional, ethical, and legal complexities. The scope of legal death in the US was made clearer by the approval of the 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The act is completely adopted word for word by most US states, but there are states like Louisiana that adopted the UDDA with some included criteria for neurological death. It is important to note that the UDDA is a legal guide used to make legal and medical decisions rather than a law that must be followed completely. With the advancement of medical technology, individuals can be kept alive through a variety of medical interventions that sustain necessary physiological functions, such as breathing, in the absence of complete mental status or other basic functions considered to be fundamental to life These modalities at times blur the line between life and death, and disagreement exists on the technical definitions and applications of these terms. The result is an ethical gray area in which medical care can be provided, but the question of whether it should be provided remains. This article is meant to examine the ethical and societal implications of end-of-life care to an individual who- depending upon the definition- may be considered dead.","PeriodicalId":164934,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Healthcare Ethics & Administration","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Healthcare Ethics & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22461/jhea.1.71636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

End-of-life care is a topic that many consider to be an uncomfortable one given its emotional, ethical, and legal complexities. The scope of legal death in the US was made clearer by the approval of the 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The act is completely adopted word for word by most US states, but there are states like Louisiana that adopted the UDDA with some included criteria for neurological death. It is important to note that the UDDA is a legal guide used to make legal and medical decisions rather than a law that must be followed completely. With the advancement of medical technology, individuals can be kept alive through a variety of medical interventions that sustain necessary physiological functions, such as breathing, in the absence of complete mental status or other basic functions considered to be fundamental to life These modalities at times blur the line between life and death, and disagreement exists on the technical definitions and applications of these terms. The result is an ethical gray area in which medical care can be provided, but the question of whether it should be provided remains. This article is meant to examine the ethical and societal implications of end-of-life care to an individual who- depending upon the definition- may be considered dead.
回顾美国临终关怀:缺乏指导框架的难题
考虑到临终关怀在情感、伦理和法律上的复杂性,很多人认为这是一个令人不舒服的话题。1981年通过的《统一死亡判定法》(UDDA)明确了美国法定死亡的范围。该法案被美国大多数州逐字逐句地采用,但也有一些州,如路易斯安那州,采用了UDDA,其中包括一些神经系统死亡的标准。必须指出的是,《世界发展议程》是用于作出法律和医疗决定的法律指南,而不是必须完全遵守的法律。随着医疗技术的进步,在没有完整的精神状态或被认为对生命至关重要的其他基本功能的情况下,可以通过维持必要的生理功能(如呼吸)的各种医疗干预措施来维持个人的生命。这些方式有时模糊了生与死之间的界限,对这些术语的技术定义和应用存在分歧。其结果是出现了一个伦理灰色地带,在这个地带可以提供医疗服务,但是否应该提供医疗服务的问题仍然存在。这篇文章的目的是研究临终关怀对一个人的伦理和社会影响,根据定义,这个人可能被认为已经死亡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信