The Betancourt v. Trinitas case began with a conflict between the Betancourt family and the Trinitas Medical hospital. Rueben Betancourt is a seventy three year old man patient at the Trinitas Medical Hospital, admitted for surgery on his malignant thymoma. However after his surgery in 2008 the doctor diagnoses him with anoxic encephalopathy. Anoxic encephalopathy which is condition when the brain tissues does not receive enough oxygen to function and in Rueben case caused him to fall unconscious as well. His family than took him to various hospitals in order to provide treatment but it was unsuccessful in causing him to regain consciousness. He was readmitted to the Trinitas on July 3, 2008 with renal failure after being in a vegetative state for a year. Renal Failure is when the kidney lose their ability to filter fluids and waste causes dangerous levels to accumulate in your body. There are two types of renal failure acute and chronic. “Acute renal failure (ARF) occurs when the kidneys suddenly stop filtering waste products from the blood. Chronic renal failure (CRF) develops slowly with very few symptoms in its early stages.” Triantis Hospital began treating Rueben due this disease and put him on an artificial ventilator and gave him dialysis. Dialysis is given at the end state of renal failure but not a permanent solution. The real solution is kidney transplant but with Rueben in a vegetative state he is highly unlikely to receive one because of the shortages. The Trinitas hospital advised the Betancourt family that Rueben had lapsed into a vegetative state and suggested that taking Rueben off life support was the best action.
The daughter of Reuben Betancourt took the hospital to court in order to require the hospital to...
... middle of paper ...
...ourt to decide whether treatment should be removed from a comatose patient but rather to establish criteria that respect the right to self-determination and protect incapacitated patients.” After this decision was made that hospital started an appeal Rueben Betancourt died during the process.
Works Cited
http://www.urologyhealth.org/urology/index.cfm?article=20
Report of a working party of the Royal College of Physicians; The Vegetative State: Guidance on diagnosis and management; 2003
All information above about the court case was gathered from Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital Docket No. c-12-09
Wellman, Carl. Medical law and moral rights. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2005 pg. 185.
Betancourt v. Trinitas Regional Medical Hospital, UNN-C-12-09,
Zucker, Marjorie B., and Howard D. Zucker. Medical futility and the evaluation of life-sustaining
The intersection of health policy to the case of Senora Benitez is brought by social, political and environmental factors. First social, Senora Benitez with no children, husband who got laid off from work and a life in a trailer truck added in worsening the health condition of Senora. I think if only the husband can have work and if they have children who can support their needs it will be easier for the family to support the treatment needed by the patient. Political wise because of the surgeon who’s been wanting to have his own vascular surgery clinic and did a wrong surgery. Also it is stated that he started the patient on additional antibiotic, which makes the kidney of the patient to diffuse. I think because of the dream of the doctor the budget allotted to the patient was consumed and the hospital administrators became worried. I also want to assume that educational background was also not tackled, it is important to know that the patient is understanding the teaching well and know the importance of the treatment and possible outcome if not followed. Also, social isolation when the author described Mrs. Benitez not attending church and the only option for her would be her neighbor who barely let them borrow the car to drive for 12 miles. The distance of the health care center is also a factor and the reason why can’t do follow up
The ethical principle of nonmaleficence demands to first do no harm and in this case protect the patient from harm since she cannot protect. Nurses must be aware in situations such as this, that they are expected to advocate for patients in a right and reasonable way. The dilemma with nonmaleficence is that Mrs. Boswell has no chance of recovery because of her increasing debilitating mental incapability and the obvious harm that outweighs the intended benefits. If the decision were to continue treatment, suffering of the patient and family would be evident. Autonomy is the right to making own decisions and freedom to choose a plan of action. When making decisions regarding treatment of another person, it is important to respect the expressed wishes of the individual. John says that his mother would want to live as long as she could, but questions arise related to her quality of life and perception of prolonged suffering by prolonging the dying process. In BOOK states that quality of life changes throughout one’s life ...
Melvin, Justice. "In The Supreme Court Of British Columbia." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.3 (1993): 309. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
This case study which is taken from Robert M. Veatch’s Medical Ethics book is about a 5 year old girl, who from the last 3 years, has been suffering from “progressive renal failure” which...
Fact of the case: In 1981, officials at a hospital, including executive director Dr. Dennis O’Connor, suspected improprieties in Dr.ortegas management of a residency program. The official conducted an investigation of Dr.Ortega, which included multiple searches of his office and seizure of a number of items. The items were later used in proceedings before the California state personnel board to impeach the credibility of witnesses that testified for on Dr.Ortegas behalf. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
The renal disease are common nowadays .The acute renal failure is a medical term means that the kidneys stopped from working and not able to clear toxins from body ,not able to maintained a stable electrolyte balance inside the body and not able to secret the extra fluid as urine outside the body. The renal replacement therapy (RRT) or dialysis has been discovered on 1913 by Able, Rowntree and Turner in London, UK.
Bowers, L., Allan, T., Simpson, A., Nijman, H., & Warren, J. (2007). Adverse Incidents, Patient
Charlotte’s parents wanted the doctors to continue testing until it was determined that her life diffidently had no chance of remaining. Because, of Charlotte’s parents’ desires unfortunately caused Charlotte to die a painful death without her parents. If the patient is unable to speak for their selves, the family should be able to have some say in the medical treatment, however; if the doctors have tried everything they could do, the hospital should have final decisions whether or not the patient dies or treatment
On January 27, 1964, the court released her upon recommendation of two doctors appointed by the probate court to examine her. She filed law suits for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malpractice against Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk and Ardmore Acres. The court dismissed case on Smyk and Ardmore (115, 497, & 924, 1969) and (Swainson, n.d.).
Courts,” in Health Politics and Policy, 4th edition (James A. Morone, Theodor J. Litman, and
The hypothesis being addressed is to test whether psychics have clairvoyant powers or not. Dr. Peter Venkman is interested in testing this hypothesis and thus showing the existence of ESP. 1b. Dr. Venkman’s standpoint is supported and rejected by a great deal of evidence. This can be seen in many ways. For example, evidence that is for Dr. Venkman’s argument is the story “Futility,” which was written by Morgan Robertson in 1898. Robertson’s novel was about a huge ship called the Titan which was destroyed by the presence of thick fog and therefore, crashed into an iceberg and sunk killing many people. Due to the reason that there was a scarcity of lifeboats on board, the number of fatalities were high. Similar to that of Robertson’s story,
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
She controlled every movement and every person’s actions and thoughts. She made the doctors so miserable when they did not follow her instructions, that they begged to be transferred out if. “I'm disappointed in you. Even if one hadn't read his history all one should need to do is pay attention to his behavior on the ward to realize how absurd the suggestion is. This man is not only very very sick, but I believe he is definitely a Potential Assaultive” (). This quote from the book illustrated how Nurse Ratched controlled her ward. She manipulated people into siding with her regardless of whether it was the right decision. This was malpractice by Nurse Ratched because she did not allow the doctor, who was trained to diagnose patients, to do his job properly. Instead, she manipulated the doctor to diagnose the patients incorrectly in order to benefit her interests rather than those of the
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death: A Report on the Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.