There is at present considerable @entity911 with respect to ethical guidelines that should govern the behavior of society and the physician confronted by problems resulting from recent attainments of medicine and science. The use of life supporting devices raises the problem of determining when @entity204 has occurred and what is proper ethical procedure in dealing with the deficient half life caused by " @entity1620 ." Some guidance is obtained from a consideration of the nature of life, the nature of @entity204 , the nature of @entity1 , and the essence lost in @entity204 of @entity1 . A parallel consideration of the nature of ethics, the bases of ethics and of ethical decision can be helpful. An individual may have ideals which control behavior, even elevate ethical standards; others entertain concepts that destroy social ethics. Ethics control and direct social interactions; ethics determine the quality of social behavior--ethics are established by societies not by individuals. Numerous commissions have endeavored to define the requirements of physicians for diagnosing @entity1620 and for appropriate subsequent actions. The rationales presented, however, are not invariably accepted by lay society. The problem is created by numerous trends. Among them are the "rightest" movement which, though possessing many virtues, has its excesses such as expressed in the "right to life movement." These have not been beneficial and have necessitated "right to @entity204 movements." Opposition is also due to the fact that society's concepts of the medical profession have changed. The practice of organ transplantation has created problems. Finally, the concept of @entity204 as other than evil is no longer generally accepted. As more biological manipulations are possible ever more difficult ethical problems will arise. It is a certainty, however, that when @entity1620 has occurred life of @entity1 and that of the individual has ended. Although others might not agree, our ethic requires us to use life assist techniques to preserve the vegetative @entity1 , the individual who can still breathe spontaneously though lacking consciousness and behavioral ability. All the codes of medical ethics state that a physician shall not kill--this does not mean he cannot permit the terminal phases of @entity204 when the essence of @entity1 life is lost. A major question is the ethical responsibility of one society toward another. Can an affluent society squander its resources in the preservation of ineffectual life in the body after " @entity1620 " when others are without the medical assistance which would permit total living?

A consideration of the ethics of @entity1620 --what are the ethical guidelines for physician, family and society in dealing with XXXX ?

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['human', 'man'] @entity1620 :: ('MESH:D001926', 'Disease') :: ['Brain Death', 'brain death'] @entity204 :: ('MESH:D003643', 'Disease') :: ['death'] @entity911 :: ('MESH:D003221', 'Disease') :: ['confusion']
@entity1620 :: (MESH:D001926,Disease) :: ['brain death']
