Varelius argues that a patient’s autonomy that is refusing treatment should not be respected and treated anyways. To do this, he uses the subjective and objective theories of wellbeing to weigh the possible options. Accepting the subjective theory of wellbeing would take in account the patients favors and disfavors, thus a person’s good is based on her own decisions. The patient is entitled to be the one that weighs out the options of being treated or not being treated. Therefore, accepting prudential subjectivism would then commit you to respecting the patient’s decision not to be treated.
Coercive treatment involves the treatment of an individual whom does not want to seek treatment or does not think that they require treatment. I believe that coercive treatment is a defensible practice as the practitioners working against the will of their patients, are doing so in hopes of helping the individual suffering from a mental disorder. There are many reasons as to why individuals may not believe that they require any sort of treatment. These reasons range from not realizing the consequences of their actions, fear of judgement, misinterpretation of symptoms, etc. There are a few recounts from Voices from the Inside, which display the correct use and need for coercive treatment, deeming it to be defensible.
That is very true, but the current laws that oppose euthanasia are for the protection of patients from abuse by dishonest actions and methods of physicians who will be ending their life, not to cause needless pain and suffering (Marker and Hamlon). Although there is little evidence on assisted suicide and euthanasia that is collected from real patients, the studies that collect data from current patients, and not hypothetical questioning, show different results than what is most broadcasted by supporters. These studies reveal that those who choose a premature death do so because of the fear instilled in them by the idea of physical deterioration and lose of community with the rest of society (Nolan n. pag.). It may seem that physical deterioration is the same as pain, but in this case, it is not. This type of physical deterioration is with the loss of community, which many believe to result in the loss of self, autonomy, and independence (Nolan n. pag.).
If the law did decide to permit euthanasia, however, they may allow doctors who are against the practice to opt out, and instead other medical practitioners will be written into the bill, as is the case with abortion in many societies. If this was included in the Bill, then this would be an instance where the law has taken the backseat to the autonomy of medical practitioners and allow their moral viewpoints to override the law, therefore it is clear here that the law has a connection with morality and therefore it is far from being morally
Dyck’s book, “Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide,” details why PAS is unethical. One of Dyck’s first arguments comes from a story in which a patient, who initially requested PAS but later found enjoyment in other things and turned away from PAS. His argument stands in which he says that patient’s wishes can change and that when they find happiness and solace in other things they will understand that PAS is not the way to go (Dyck, 14-15). Dyck also explores the concept of how PAS is not as effective as comfort-only care.
People are skeptical thinking that using multimodal medication is the same as taking drugs that do not mix, just like in polypharmacy. However, Manworren states, “Multimodal analgesia and polypharmacy are two distinctly different concepts that are easily confused and therefore may call into question the safety and efficacy of a multimodal postoperative pain treatment plan. The multimodal approach relies on the thoughtful use of analgesics in at least two medication classes and therapies that target different pain mechanisms.” Therefore, the assumption of multimodal medication being hand in hand with polypharmacy is stated
The DSM’s understanding of an individual is limited to the diagnostic label applied to him or her, which might not necessarily be representative of the true nature of the person (Barone, Maddux, & Snyder, 1997). On the other hand, psychological case formulation understands that behind the individual’s diagnostic label lies a myriad of different causes that could have contributed to the manifestation of the disorder (Macneil et al., 2012). This not only leads to a more in-depth understanding of the client, but may also help to avoid the “pathologising of normal problems in living” (Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2009). Currently, the DSM-5 includes several disorders that might not be necessarily pathological. For example, an individual is said to have Hoarding Disorder when they refuse to get rid of their belongings, no matter the value.
Some medical professionals have expressed a fear that by allowing the muscles to relax, posture correctors may actually cause them to become complacent rather than more powerful. The body may grow to rely on the posture corrector to remain upright, meaning your posture could conceivably be worse than ever before by the time you abandon your corrector. At the end of the day, posture correctors can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are some patients for whom posture correctors have been something close to a godsend. They are unrelenting in their praise for posture correctors and believe everybody, even those who may not have obvious struggles with their posture, will benefit from purchasing
7). These terms create a “pejorative light on presumed characteristics rather than on the nature of the contact between client and practitioner” (Rooney, 1992, p. 7). This may lead to a SW’s “frustration over the lack of fit of involuntary clients with voluntary therapy concepts [which] contributes to practitioners blaming the clients” (Rooney, 1992, p. 13). Whereas, involuntary clients may choose not to participate due to a wide variety of reasons based on their upbringing or history/past experience. One example that involuntary clients may not be willing to participate may be due to the way that they view the SW’s authority/power, the fact that the SW may be “just another SW” in their eyes, or that they see the SW as a representation of the system (Quartz, 2018).
Why There Are a Large Number of Medical Negligence Claims? A medical negligence also named formally the same as medical malpractice is a circumstances where the patient needs medical care but could not obtain it either as a result of the inaccessibility of the physician in the good time, using the wrong medication by the doctor that may contribute to disability or fatality of the patient, the physician may not make a diagnosis of the disease as it should be, the treatment furnished by the doctor has produced unfavorable effects to the patient or the treatment provided by the doctor is sub standard. Reasons that contribute to medical negligence Medical negligence comes into existence if the patient is caused harm by a physician, nurse or hospital by way of out of order
Physicians were blamed for the absence of this very feeling and non adherence to the main principles of humanism. That is why, there is a point of view that dehumanization could have the positive impact on the whole sphere. However, at the same time some specialists underline the fact that "the current emphasis on speed, the efficient completion of tasks and quantitative measuring undermine the ethics, tradition and practice of care" (de Zulueta, 2013, 87). With this in mind, it is possible to admit the ambivalent character of the issue of dehumanization. It obviously results from the change of the attitude towards some traditional values such as care and close relations with patients.