More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical decisions in healthcare essay
Ethical dilemmas in health care settings
Ethical decisions in healthcare essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical decisions in healthcare essay
The ethical issues in this case are who’s responsible for making the health care decisions for Mr. Woods a patient that would never regain consciousness and will die in about 2 to 10 years while on the ventilator after having a heart attack. It seems as if Mr. Woods never completed a living will, so the Kentucky Supreme Court appointed a guardian. According to the book, this is allowed by the Living Will Directive Act which allows a judicially appointed guardian or surrogate to remove life support. To my understanding, the hospital ethics committee recommended that Mr. Woods be removed for life support, and the guardian asked for approval. Ethics committee should serve as a legal guardian when there is no guardian appointed, and the family
and physicians agree with the committee. The pros of an ethics committee serving as a patient guardian are they help with making wiser decisions, look for the best interests of the patient, and everyone in the committee must agree before any decisions are made. The cons of an ethics committee serving as a patient guardian are they are not familiar with patient and they may not be familiar with the patient religious beliefs or the patient attitudes regarding life or death.
Emilio is terminally ill and is under the care of the Children’s Hospital in Texas. He is placed on life support by a respirator and is given pills causing the child to spend majority of his time in the pediatric intensive care unit unconscious. Showing no signs of improvement, the physician has requested the parents look for another hospital willing to continue aiding Emilio within a period of 10 days. Under the Texas “futile-care” law, the hospital’s ethics committee can, “declare the care of a terminally ill patient to be of no benefit,” allowing them to terminate care after a given time period. (Moreno, Sylvia. Case Puts Futile-Treatment Law Under a Microscope.
The case had a many important questions to it. In one question: is physician-assisted suicide morally, ethically, legally correct, and/or fair to anyone?
In conclusion, we support the Court’s conclusion to uphold the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate Charlotte Wyatt on the grounds that she was no longer truly living and her prolonged existence and suffering did not outweigh the sum of the costs to both herself and everyone involved. Although ownership, or responsibility for a minor usually falls upon the parents or guardians, under these conditions they were unable to make an unbiased decision due to emotional investment.
Today, there are so many legal dilemmas dominating trial for the courts to make a sound legal decision on whose right in a complicated situation. Despite the outcome of the case, the disagreement usually has a profound effect on the healthcare organization, and the industry as a whole. Many cases are arguments centered around if the issue is a legal or moral principle. Regardless what the situation maybe, the final decision is left to the courts to differentiate between the legality issues at hand opposed to justifying a case based on moral rules. According to Pozgar (2012), an ethical dilemma arises in situations where a choice must be made between unpleasant alternative. It can occur whenever a choice involves giving up something good and suffering something bad, no matter what course of action is taken (p. 367). In this paper, I will discuss cases that arose in the healthcare industry that have been tried and brought to justice by the United States court system.
Signing for the treatment, procedures, medications. He or she has the right if the patient death the appointee has the right to order where the burial should take place. The family members in this case have zero rights, they are unable to exercises any thing because of the legal stand point of the living will. But if the patient in question has no living will under the different laws the person in command is her or her spouse if there is no spouse. The next in commander is his or her children’s.
... others with decision making at the end of life through the Cruzan Foundation.The Cruzan case drew national attention, and the family was put under media throughout the process. Missouri now allows health care directives (though not living wills) to instruct that medically assisted nutrition and hydration be removed after a diagnosis of permanent or persistent vegetative state has been made. The Cruzan case became the first "right to die" argument ever heard by the United States Supreme Court.
Why is it so important that healthcare executives adhere to a professional code of ethics?
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
We consider the legislation consistent with the principle that "respect for that person [who is capable of participating] mandates that he or she be recognized as the prime decision-maker" in treatment. [2] The patient is a person in relationship, not an isolated individual. Her or his decisions should take others into account and be made in supportive consultation with family members, close friends, pastor, and health care professionals. Christians face end-of-life decisions in all their ambiguity, knowing we are responsible ultimately to God, whose grace comforts, forgives, and frees us in our dilemmas.
Braddok III Clarence H. MD MPH .” Physician aid-in-dying: Ethical topics in medicine” n.d University of Washington school of medicinestate death with dignity act” N.p n.d University of Washington department of bioethics and humanities 2009 web 24 March 2012
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
The word ethics is derived from the Greek word ‘ethos’ meaning character or conduct. It is typically used interchangeably with word moral which is derived from the Latin word ‘moves’ which means customs or habits. Ethics refers to conduct, character and motivations involved in moral acts. Ethics are not imposed by a profession, by law but by moral obligation. It is unwritten code of conduct that encompasses both professional conduct and judgement. Ethics helps support autonomy and self-determination, protect the vulnerable and promotes the welfare and equality of human beings. An ethical dentist- patient relationship is based on trust, honesty, confidentiality, privacy and the quality of care.1
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has an entire ethical policy book created by ethicists to help guide physicians through the world of medicine. Section E-10.06 of the AMA ethics policies code book states that physicians have the right to follow their own conscience in regards to patient care as long as it is not harmful to the patient (AMA, 2015). This states that the right of Autonomy also extend to the attending physician that states that they are able to keep to his own personal ethical and moral code as long as it doesn’t harm the patient or cause undue harm or burden. In the case of Mrs. B due to the fact that the attending does not know if the end of life directive was still the wish of the patient or if she even made it rationally. Therefore in this case the physician would be able to go against the end of life directive on the grounds that it goes against their moral beliefs and that they are not causing undue harm or neglect to the patient. Also by working in a Catholic Hospital the doctor is also saying that at least in part he agrees with the policies of the hospital he is functioning out
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.