Journal 5

Alex Marr

Journal 5

            The article I read for my fifth journal was called “Decisions Near the End of Life: Professional Views on Life-Sustaining Treatments” and was found in the American Journal of Public Health.  The article begins by introducing the idea of decisions near the end of one’s life and how some people receive more medical care and pain relief than they truly desire.  The article then mentions that there have been suggestions for ethical guidelines regarding end of life decisions but none have ever been made truly official.  The main point of the article is then brought up as it talks about how physicians and health care professions view life-sustaining treatment.  While it is the physician’s job to try to relieve pain and help the patient in all circumstances, the physician also has to recognize the patient’s right to refuse treatment.  The article concludes by showing many different studies regarding patient’s views on treatments for many different areas in medicine such as pain, nutrition, end of life, and hydration.

            This article was exactly what I was looking for to compare my previous articles with.  My last two articles offered conflicting views regarding who should be able to make end of life decisions and how the decision can ultimately be made.  This article provided the professional’s view on life support and how they fit into the situation.  This article also agreed with the ideas of the previous two articles and also gave its own ideas.  While recognizing the idea of informed consent like in journal number 4, health care professionals also realize that they should recognize the patient’s rights as talked about in journal number 3.

            By providing me with a physician’s and health care professional’s view on end of life decisions, this article was able to fill in some gaps I had in my research.  Through this article, I learned that health care professionals recognize both sides of the argument and believe that the decision is very tough.  They argue that they should fight for the best outcome of the patient and that means sustaining their life and providing necessary treatment to keep them alive.  However, the physician also realizes that the patient has rights and can refuse treatment if he or she wishes.  The physician also likes the idea of informed consent as it makes their decisions easier and they cannot get in trouble legally.  For example, if a patient has a “do not resuscitate” card, then the physician must let the patient die if he or she goes into cardiac arrest.  While it is against the physician’s idea of wanting to help people, they realize it is ultimately a right of the patient.

            After this article, my research is almost complete as I feel I have learned many different viewpoints regarding end of life decisions.  While I have learned the two sides of the argument and the physician’s viewpoint, I still wonder what the family’s opinion is.  Would they ultimately respect the physician’s decision or would they have their own opinion against that of a professional?  Would this cause more issues than it’s worth?  With my future research, I’m hoping to wrap up and fill in the last couple of gaps that I have.