The option to stop providing life-sustaining care to someone who is incapable of making their own decisions has come up in legal and ethical debates. The legal and ethical issues surrounding Arthur's case will be examined in this essay. Legal issues arise when a person lacks the capacity to make decisions for themselves. These issues include valid consent, factors that affect receiving life-sustaining medical treatment, the justification for consent, different legal actions related to consent, and disagreements between decision makers. The principles outlined in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, how to apply those principles to ethical problems, and how values might influence healthcare decision-making will all be covered …show more content…
This measures the child’s capacity to consent to medical treatment, determined by maturity, intelligence, and level of understanding by the child (Griffith, 2016). The surgical team would have been required to acknowledge the age of the child, psychological and emotional state, the child’s understanding of the nature and consequences of the proposed treatment including both short and long term issues associated with the procedure (Griffith, 2016). Gillicks competence is protected through Gillicks competence was established in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986). AC112 was approved in the High Court of Australia in Secretary, Department of Health, and Community services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1992) (Marion’s case). Although Arthur had originally refused to be taken into hospital by the paramedics, once Elise contacted paramedics, as Arthur had been unconscious his consent was not required as it was deemed an emergency situation where treatment is required to prevent serious harm to the life or health of the person. Protection for the paramedics from legal liability is found in Marion’s case in common law, as well as protection from the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s63(1) – Urgent healthcare. Another legislation in Queensland that protects first aid responders, including paramedics and the general public, is the Protection for Good Samaritans under the Civil Liability (Good Samaritan) Amendment Bill 2007 (Qld). This legislation grants protection to individuals to act without fear of legal repercussions, provided the responder acts with reasonable care and good faith; providing legal protection and encouragement for individuals to provide assistance in emergency situations (Dixon, 2007). The requirement under law to get permission before administering
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 ...
In the following case, Luke is involved in a very perplexing conflict, or Ethical dilemma. This situation is an Ethical dilemma, and not just a regular “everyday” problem, because to Luke there might not be an obvious answer. He can also be thinking that both choices, keeping his commitments of confidentiality and telling his brother, Owen, are both correct things to do. If Luke tells his brother about the project, then he might concur with a theory known as Breach of confidentiality. “Breach of confidentiality occurs when someone gives away information that was supposed to be kept private.” (GENB4350 Online Lecture, Ethical Reasoning 1). By Luke breaching information that is supposed to be kept secret, he will betray the trust of his company
In this paper, I will be arguing a that in the Please Let Me Die case, the patient did not give informed consent to rejecting treatment due to a variety of factors. In summary, the patient was a 25-year-old male named Dax Cowart who suffered severe burns over 65% of his body after a propane gas explosion. He had several fingers amputated and his right eye removed after he was stabilized. He was discharged with minimal use of his hands, totally blind, and needed assistance with daily activities. He asked that treatment be discontinued throughout his hospital stay and rehabilitation, but his request was denied because his physicians deemed him not competent. I believe he was not competent because of his injuries; as is said about many patients
When a patient’s/family’s religious beliefs go against recommended medical treatment, it brings up an ethical issue. If the patient is a minor, this makes the case even more complex. In such a case, the parents would need to be evaluated to see if they were properly representing their child’s best interest. Depending on the child’s age, the child would need to be consulted to see if he/she meets the criteria of having the capacity to make his/her own medical decisions. Finally, the physician needs to be consulted to determine what his/her beliefs are on the case and under what circumstances would he be willing to perform the surgery.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
Modern society has developed an understanding and recognised the morals regarding consent as individuals have a right and interest over their body (5). Consent enables protection against unauthorised invasion of an individual’s body and can be applied to numerous scenarios, including medical care (5). A paramedic must obtain consent before treating a patient, as consent has legal and ethical aspects that must be regarded (2). It is imperative for a paramedic to maintain ethical and legal competency to assess whether a patient is competent to deny or consent to treatment as presented in the case study (3). Paramedics attended Betty, a 78-year-old female, after her son called the ambulance service. Betty is provided
However, the framework in practice is very complex, and has various inconsistencies, such as the legality of refusing treatment, the sovereignty of a living will and the issue of prosecuting those who assist someone to end their lives. There is evidence that shows doctors using palliative sedation as a means to facilitate death in patients that are in extreme pain and the use of limiting or even stopping treatment at the patient’s request is not uncommon. The difficulties of putting the law into practice make it extremely difficult for courts, legislators and doctors to reach clear decisions on individual cases. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the legal framework need to be addressed, as with these present the argument against legalising the right to die is weakened. Legalising assisted dying would simplify the framework and ensure that set barriers and safeguards could be created in order to protect the patient and his/her
Terminally ill patients no longer wish to have their lives artificially prolonged by expensive, painful, or debilitating treatments and would rather die quietly. The patients do not wish to prolong their life and they may not wish to commit suicide themselves or worse, are physically incapable of doing so. People have the right to their own destiny and living in the U.S we have acquired freedom. The patients Right to Self Determination Act gives the patient the power to decide how, when and why they choose to die. In "Editorial Exchange: Death with Dignity: Reopen Assisted-Suicide Debate." The Canadian Press Sep 27 2013 ProQuest. 7 June 2015” Doctor Donald Low and his terminally ill friends plea to physician assisted suicide in an online video. He states that it is their rights as cancer patients to make the decision to pass, but he is denied. Where is the equality? Patients who are on dialysis or hooked up to respirators have the choice to end their lives by ending treatment. However, patients who are not dependent on life support cannot choose when they can pass. Many patients feel that because of their illness that life is not worth living for and that life has already been taken from them due to lack of activities they can perform. Most of the terminally ill patients are bedridden with outrageous amounts of medication and they don’t want family members having to care for them
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Abortion, one of the most quarrelsome issues in America, is discussed daily in thorough detail. Although an abortion deals with women’s own bodies, health, and futures, women should not be allowed to regulate who survives and who dies. America’s president-elect genuinely deems that Roe v. Wade, which allows women to make their own intimate decision, should be repealed. Furthermore, at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Donald Trump stated that women who seek abortion should be subject to “some form of punishment” (Flegenheimer, et al.). While this New York Times article is heavily biased, Trump was highly criticized for the rhetoric he used at his campaign event. Americans must fathom what Trump is faithfully preaching; Trump is discoursing any
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 House of Lords
Some laws allow patients to choose whether they want to choose death or choose to stay on life support. In the Right-to-Die prin...
Charlotte’s parents thought otherwise, the Ethics Advisory Committee had to get involved. The debate surrounded if the doctors were in the right to control the life of someone who were incapable of deciding themselves, or is it the parents right. The Ethics Advisory Committee, stated that the parents were superior to those of the hospital and the hospital should conduct with less painful test. 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
One of the many concerns is allowing incompetent individuals making this irreversible decision, which is why, “all have agreed that this end-of-life option should apply on to competent individual’s”(113). In addition, people opposed to this method argue that patients demanding this process are suffering from depression and not able to make decisions; yet, Rosenfled explains that practitioners most ensure that patients who consent to this medical intervention do it voluntarily, knowingly and
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.