Mr. Z is 86-years-old, Caucasian male that lives with his wife of 56 years. He values his independence, but recently he been struggling to care for himself. He has a long-standing history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. His wife was concerned because she noticed her husband can no longer drive, is having difficulty walking, and managing his own care and daily medication. She explained that her husband is lethargic, sleepless, having poor appetite and difficulty maintaining his weight. After his doctor noted that Mr. Z has lost interest in the things he used to enjoy, he was diagnosed with depression. It was also noted that Mr. Z expressed feelings of killing himself with a gun. However, after discussion with his doctor, Mr. Z agrees to try anti depressant medication to help with the mood disorder. A week after the medication is started, before the effect of the medication can be seen, Mr. Z is admitted to the hospital for a heart attack. His heart is so damaged it is having difficulty pumping blood to keep his kidneys functioning …show more content…
56-57). In Mr. Z’s case, these principles are in conflict. Mr. Z’s prognosis is unclear, and the physician is not clear if the benefits of dialysis will outweigh the burdens. Under normal circumstances, Mr. Z would have the right to make the decision to refuse dialysis treatment. However, his physician questions Mr. Z’s capacity for autonomous decision-making is impaired by depression. From a legal perspective, one must decide if Mr. Z is either competent to make decisions for himself or incompetent to do so, in which case someone else makes decisions on his
One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.
The Victoria Government Department of Human Services (2012) stated “the freedom to make decisions which affect our lives is a fundamental right that each of us should enjoy”. The decisions we make in our lives represent who we are and how we want to be perceived by the world – whilst taking into consideration our own morals, beliefs and goals. Supported decision-making (SDM) is a process by which “a third-party assists or helps and individual with an intellectual or cognitive disability to make a legally enforceable decision for oneself” (Kohn & Blumenthal, 2013). May & Rea (2014) stated that “supported decision-making assumes that all people, regardless of their ability or disability, have some capacity to be involved in decision making”.
With the type of service that I work for the way that consent is obtained is through communication with the individuals care manager or funder who will complete an individual assessment, gain consent to share information with our service/ staff and will then forward this on to our service. Once we have received the referral with consent we will then arrange a date for a full assessment which will either be a face to face or telephone assessment where we will then discuss with the individual about consent, why we require consent and who information will be shared with. We will also explain that there are different levels of consent such as partial consent, this will be used for information relating to emergencies or to update family members
The Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) sets out explicit rules and specifies when consent is required and who can give the consent when the client is incapable of doing so (College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO), 2009). According to the HCCA (1996), there is no minimum age for providing or refusing consent in Ontario. A person is capable if he or she understands the information given that is relevant to making a decision concerning the treatment, and can appreciate the anticipated consequences of both accepting or declining a treatment. (Keatings
Varelius argues that treating the patient based on objective prudential values is better for the patient than respecting her subjective values. Also, when the patient is presented with the idea, she will realize that her decision was based on false reasoning and she will change her mind. This makes Varelius paper much stronger and much more likely to
Most people would never contemplate whether or not to end their family pet’s suffering, so why can’t people be as sympathetic to their family and friends? In today’s society, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is one of the most debatable topics. The debates on physician-assisted suicide go back and forth between whether or not patients, specifically terminally ill patients, should have the right to die with the aid of doctors. Opponents believe physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong for patients to end their lives, and they believe it violates basic medical standards. However, proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe it is a humane and safe way for terminally ill patients to resolve their agony.
People are required to make ethical decisions every day. These decisions can greatly impact their future. What is important to some people may have little or no value to others. A person with a Christian worldview would base their ethical dilemma decision on their beliefs and the instructions that God’s word provides.
She states that dialysis adds excessive stress to the body and causes the patients to feel faint and tired, which usually keeps them from work and other normal activities. In the very last paragraph of the essay she states, “Try to tell someone that he has to die from kidney failure because selling a kidney is morally wrong. Then turn around and try to tell another person that he has to remain in poverty for that same reason.” (MacKay) These examples show the feeling and emotion of what the people are being told because the sale of kidneys is
The documentary, A Death of One’s Own, explores the end of life complexities that many terminal disease patients have to undergo in deciding on dying and dignity. It features three patients, their families, and caregivers debating the issue of physician-assisted suicide or pain relief than may speed up death. One character, Jim Witcher has ALS and knows the kind of death he is facing and wants to control its timing. Kitty Rayl is suffering from terminal cancer and wants to take advantage of her state’s Death with Dignity Act and take medication to terminate her life. Ricky Tackett, on the other hand, has liver failure and together with his family and caregiver agrees on terminal sedation to relieve his delirium and pain.
He uses examples of cases in which people committed crimes involuntarily. Eagleman also cites examples of mental diseases in which the victims have no control over their impulses or actions. In other words, there are people who simply cannot stop themselves from making horrible or regrettable decisions. Therefore, this essay challenges the assumption that people have the power to choose how they live their lives and to make the right decisions at all times. Eagleman addresses the readers directly in order to be able to demonstrate that he understands that his readers will find his ideas radical.
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.
From time to time, social work practitioners face different challenges and one of such example is being confronted with ethical dilemmas. An ethical dilemma is defined as “when the social worker sees himself or herself as facing a choice between two equally unwelcoming alternatives, which may involve a conflict of moral values, and it is not clear which choice will be the right one” (Banks, 2012). Ethical dilemmas can occur in the context of either client or organisational-related conflict situations at work. The first ethical dilemma is when the patient refuses medical treatment and services because he or she would not accept that there is any problem.
Overview The case study was about Mr. Kirby, a seventy-two year old widow male with type 2 diabetes who wife died a couple of months ago, and has been living by himself. He has become dependent, and struggles with his self-caring needs. He had a stroke and it resulted in a left-sided weakness. He fell a couple of months ago and fractured his arm bone, which was repaired and he was discharged home.
It can be argued that the standard of autonomy has not been met since the doctor has not fully informed Joseph of the reasons why he should quit smoking and lower his BMI
From a physical point of view, her mobility is good with no arthritis or many aches or pains. Her hearing is very good, and she wears bifocal glasses. Her major health issue is high blood pressure and the beginning onset of heart failure. She is good at taking her medication, however her salt intake in far too high which leads to high blood pressure. In recent years, is suffering from shortness of breath, she can find it difficult to climb the stairs to bed at night; her facial colouring is very high.