Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Medical ethics case dilemmas
Medical ethics case dilemmas
Informed consent in clinical setting cit quiz
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Medical ethics case dilemmas
A conflict between a doctor who wants to treat his patient a certain way, and a patient who wants to be treated by the doctor the way she wants. The doctor feels the that certain treatment that the patient wants is dangerous and warns the patient that he will pronounce the patient mentally unstable. This is exactly what happened in the case of Mrs. Jackson and Dr. Lowell. The conflict in this entire article is if weather the doctor can, or can not, accuse his patient mental instability to go about the treatment as he sees fit. Is this an invasion of the patient’s wants and desire for a certain way of treatment? or does the doctor have moral rights to do anything and everything even though it is against the patient’s wishes. What justifies as moral and immoral procedure for a doctor to treat his patient.
When faced with this hard dilemma, the article suggests that is use Rule Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology, to help me solve the problem of weather this justifiable or morally incorrect. Rule Utilitarianism basically reads that “a person ought to act in accordance with the the rule that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil.”(Mappes & Degrazia, 13) According to this, if anyone faces a moral dilemma, they should always try to sort of do a Cost/Benefits analysis on the outcomes of their actions versus the good that they would cause. So even today when I was debating if or not I should personally write my research essay, or, pay somebody else to write my essay for me, it took me all of 30 second to decides that even though I might not like what i would be doing for the next three to four hours, part of me know that the happiness i would get from it was unparalleled to anything. However, now, if you look at the Kantian Deontology, you will find a lot of things that are different. What this theory of morality says is the outcomes are not at all important, but your duty hold precedence over anything. Similar to Rule Utilitarianism, this theory of morality says that any act, as long as it complies with a rule, is morally justified.
When we think about this problem in a rule utilitarian way, we have to abide by the rules which clearly state that the patient has the final say in what treatment is going to be used on them.
Paramedics deemed the patient competent and therefore Ms. Walker had the right to refuse treatment, which held paramedics legally and ethically bound to her decisions. Although negligent actions were identified which may have resulted in a substandard patient treatment, paramedics acted with intent to better the patient despite unforeseen future factors. There is no set structure paramedics can follow in an ethical and legal standpoint thus paramedics must tailor them to every given
We have one resident in the long-term facility who has stage four cancer of spinal cord and he has been suffering from intense pain. Every time when I enter his room, he cries and implore to the god that he can minimize his suffering. He has prescription of hydromorphone 8 mg every 4 hourly PRN , oxycodone 5 mg every 6 hourly and 50 mcg of fentanyl path change every 3rd day. After giving all scheduled and PRN medicine his pain level remains same as before. When I see that patients I feel like to give highest dose of medicine as well as alternative pain management therapy so that he can have some comfort but ethically I have no right to do that. He is hospice but he has no comfort at all. Following are the nine steps of Uustal ethical decision making model.
So by looking at the definition of rule utilitarianism, the doctors would have to look at the overall concept that is related to everyone and ask for the permission before injecting the patient. By this act, it will not give them the maximum of pleasure over pain. Whereas if it was an act utilitarian, it would produce greatest pleasure over pain by following the act utilitarianism because, by not telling or asking the patients would give them the results they wanted without even asking the patients. If somehow they found the cure of the cancer by trying the cancer injections on the patients without their consent at a hospital, that would still be wrong because the patients will not know that the injections that they are given are not for their treatment but an
In the medical ethics case study given to me, Justin is new nurse at a hospital and has become great help to the other employees but he makes mistakes often. When it comes to medical ethics, it is important to do what you know is morally correct. We all want to be good Christians and make the right decisions but sometimes those decisions will affect others negatively. We may not always act how we ought to but those decisions do affect who we are.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
The four major ethical principles in health care are: Autonomy – to honor the patient’s right to make their own decision (the opposite is paternalism - the health care provider knows best for the patient), Beneficence – to help the patient advance his/her own good, Nonmaleficence – to do no harm (many bioethical controversies involves this principle), and Justice – to be fair and treat like cases alike. All 4 principles are considered to be in effect at all times. In theory, each is of equal weight or importance. Ethical responsibilities in a given situation depend in part on the nature of the decision and in part on the roles everyone involved play.
Deontology is when an action is considered morally good because of the action itself not the product of the action ("Deontological Ethics"). When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
In this essay I will use ethical framework such as Kantian deontology and Kantian ethical theory along with key principles to argue the reason for my decision whilst justifying my decision.
The paper looks at the physician’s code of ethics that has a direct impact on efficient and ethical health care delivery. The conduct as used by ACHE is applied here.
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.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient?
...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision. Patients should be fully conscious and understand the implications of their decision. Everything should be documented possibly even videotaped that way the doctor doesn’t lose their job, receive a lawsuit or worst jail!