Positions And Substitute Decision-Making In Healthcare

The complete lack of respect for the Hospital, the Hospital’s counsel, this Court, and the Rules of Civil Procedure shown by blatantly ignoring valid discovery requests for more than six months and this Court’s Order for more than two months indicate a willful disregard that require sanctions. Accordingly, the sanctions sought by the Hospital are necessary and are not excessive. Indeed, the Hospital requests that the Court give Defendant one more chance to meet his discovery obligations and comply with an order of this Court before the imposition of a default judgment in the Hospital’s favor.

11. Similarly the reasoning for the refusal to disclose Dr. Rigney’s radiological reviews is equally misleading. While Plaintiff appreciates that Defendant Medic East has advised the court that Dr. Rigney will not be called as a witness in the instant matter, an admission Plaintiff intends to enforce should Defendant Medic East suddenly change their mind later, it does not change the fact that said reports were supplied to Dr.

Wanglie Would have desired, there was no reason to doubt her family on that point, but whether the continuation of ventilator support and gastrostomy feeding were among the reasonable medical alternatives that should have been available to Mrs. Wanglie or her surrogate decision maker, whoever that might be. The question, really, was whether the provision of this kind of treatment in this kind of case was outside the limits of medicine and, thus, beyond her power of choice. Mrs. Wanglie’s healthcare providers should have argued that medical practice simply did not include providing ventilator and gastrostomy feeding under circumstances of this case, and that not surrogate decision maker should be able to choose this option”

Oftentimes, grief can be a challenging thing to overcome as a healthcare provider. It not only stymies people from making sound decisions, but it can end up with blame focused in areas where it should not be. This is with particular regard to patient families. In the case of this 72-year-old patient, there are a number of issues in this situation that are both unethical and downright illegal, including the fact that the patient’s living will is not currently being respected. Legal/Ethical issue 1: The legality of the living will parameters Both the legal and ethical issues of this situation have the do with the legality of the living will.

Similarly, all clinicians need to gain consent from nearly every patient, either verbal or non-verbal, unless in an immediately life-threatening condition. To refuse consent, a patient has to have all information presented to them by the clinician including; the risks they may face, other alternatives to the initial treatment plan and likelihood of success (SCAS, 2016, 5.3). Consent given by a patient under unfair pressure from a friend/family member or clinician, is not considered consent as it is not the patient’s decision. If a valid consent has been given, then a patient is entitled to withdraw their consent at any time. If a patient lacks capacity to give consent, and has no nominated person with Lasting Powers of Attorney, then no one can give consent on their behalf (SCAS, 2016,

Hello guys my name is Seung Cheol Choi. I will sum up our team’s opinion and reasons. Our team thinks that physician assisted suicide should be justified for several reasons. Our first speaker, 진솔 gave three reasons why physcician assisted suicide is needed for some patients.

Involuntary admission and medication have been administered to the mentally ill and disabled for centuries; this course began in the 1800s when the first insane asylum opened in Britain after the 1808 County Asylum Act. While many organizations are aimed at equal rights for all who are not a direct danger to themselves or others, there is still large injustice for the mentally handicapped when his/her rights are violated by being pushed into unnecessary hospitalization. Countless innocent, mentally ill people are impacted by having treatments they are involuntarily given; fortunately, organizations such as Mental Disability Rights International are attempting to make a difference by fighting against the treatment the mentally disabled receive

The Cruzan family should have the right to withdraw life support from their daughter for many reasons. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health was the first case heard on the subject of the legal interests of patients in critical conditions. In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, got involved in a car accident and suffered traumatic injuries to the brain. Following that event, she was in a coma for three weeks then was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents request the hospital to cease the supply and according to Legal Information Institute, “hospital employees refused, without court approval, to honor the request of Cruzan’s parents, co-petitioners here, to terminate her artificial nutrition and hydration,

It is advised to communicate with the doctor so it can decrease the possibility that the health care decisions are not fully relied on the physician’s judgment call. There has been statistical evidence from surveys and numerous cases reported that physicians were falsely accused of showing acts of murder in the EOL care, which is another term for life support. Although that is not the case because JoAnn reports that “improving the quality of EOL care are failure to prepare an advance directive and disregard of an existing advance directive.” Overall, both the doctor and patient must make a reliability form before so the patient, at the moment who cannot make the decision, since they are unable because of their unresponsive condition. The will should describe how the patient wants to be treated but it has to be updated to specify the type of treatments that is

The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.

Atul Gawande in his article “Whose body is it, anyway?” introduced couple of cases, which discussed a controversial topic, doctors dealing with patients and making important medical decisions. These are difficult decisions in which people might have life or death choices. Who should make the important decisions, patients or doctors? Patients don’t usually know what is better for their health and while making their decisions, they might ignore or don’t know the possible side effects and consequences of these decisions.

Missed identification of shock symptoms in Ms. Gadner 2. IV infiltration being missed resulting in her not receiving fluid ordered 3. “Scanty documentation” depriving the physician of information on Ms. Gadner’s current condition 4. Administration of valium and morphine, contraindicated in shock, nursing not questioning the order 5. Didn’t communicate need for transfer to Dr. Dick.

For example, a patient may need a specific treatment. The physician’s administration attempt to gain approval form the insurance company to proceed with the treatment and is denied. The insurance company instead gives the physician another less expensive option. Though the option presented is less likely to give a better percentage of a positive outcome for the patient. The physician has a clear conflict in pleasing both the insurance company and the patient.

The negligence demonstrated in withholding treatment shows that the hospital staff’s inaction is below the expected standard. It may also cause the patient’s condition deteriorate (Hope, Savulescu, & Hendrick,

Patients have a right to complain about the doctor's refusal to the Management. Provision of Treatment requires patient’s choice and informed consent. Even if a patient has signed a general consent clause, the patient can still refuse medical treatment or procedures. However, in exceptional or emergency situations a doctor may be legally justified in performing surgery or providing treatment without the patient's consent. The patient should be competent and capable of making such a decision to give a consent.