The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.
Ethical differences can occur because of individual perseption of a subject or event (Legal dictionary, 2017). The ethical difference even may be political or religious in nature (Legal dictionary, 2017). Legal reasoning helps people to distinguish between what is right within society compared to what they think they should do. In this case, the moral reasoning is to end the patients suffering and to allow the resident to die is the kinder option (Moore, 2017). The legal reasoning in this case would be to honor the families wishes with the exception that the decision for life saving treatments was made in a malicious manner (Moore,
Both doctors and patients need to understand each other in order to find a solution for the patient, otherwise, their communication will come to nothing. Thus, the interpreter's job is not only to put that communication at ease, but also to help save the lives of many who might be severely injured as a result of misunderstanding. However, not any family member, a nurse or a stranger can be used as medical interpreters. There should be skills and requirements that a medical interpreter is expected to meet.
Ethical dilemmas may arise for patients, family members and healthcare providers alike. There are times when the ethics committee should be consulted, such as when there is a perceived ethical problem involving the care of a patient or health care providers have not been able to establish a solution that is agreed upon by the patient/ family and the provider caring for the patient. In the case of an ill family member that is in the hospital and the healthcare team is turning to the family to make medical decisions on the patient’s behalf. The family doesn't know how to decide what to do and could use some
It is nearly impossible for the patient to rely on another person to make the best decision that they would have made for themselves, particularly when it involves personal interests such as profiting from a will. If there is something to gain, the family members’ motives seem questionable. If the patient falls ill, then there lies a possibility that their heirs will hope for the patient’s death so that they could receive their inheritance. The inability to confirm whether the family actually has the patient’s best interest in mind supports the argument that any form of euthanasia is unethical. Moreover, health care costs for terminally ill patients, including nursing homes, prescription drugs, and home health care deserves consideration.
Wanglie Would have desired, there was no reason to doubt her family on that point, but whether the continuation of ventilator support and gastrostomy feeding were among the reasonable medical alternatives that should have been available to Mrs. Wanglie or her surrogate decision maker, whoever that might be. The question, really, was whether the provision of this kind of treatment in this kind of case was outside the limits of medicine and, thus, beyond her power of choice. Mrs. Wanglie’s healthcare providers should have argued that medical practice simply did not include providing ventilator and gastrostomy feeding under circumstances of this case, and that not surrogate decision maker should be able to choose this option”
Moreover, I strive to always keep in mind that there are human beings with unique and personal backgrounds, and not just overwhelmed the emergency room, constantly ridden by staffing shortage and filled with patients carrying their medical ailments. Often, a sincere smile, eye contact, active listening and therapeutic silence could be sufficient tools to improve patient comfort and self-esteem. On the other hand, teamwork and collaboration are essential for to maintain healthy work
Finally, it will explain the importance of ethics in communication and how patient safety is influenced by good or bad team communication. The first method of communication is mutual respect. The patient and clinician have a partnership based on trust. The patient has respect for the clinician 's experience and the clinician has respect for the patient 's wishes, needs, concerns and builds on past experience to meet immediate needs. (Paget, 2011).
Oftentimes, grief can be a challenging thing to overcome as a healthcare provider. It not only stymies people from making sound decisions, but it can end up with blame focused in areas where it should not be. This is with particular regard to patient families. In the case of this 72-year-old patient, there are a number of issues in this situation that are both unethical and downright illegal, including the fact that the patient’s living will is not currently being respected. Legal/Ethical issue 1: The legality of the living will parameters Both the legal and ethical issues of this situation have the do with the legality of the living will.
Dying patients have the right to decide if they want to receive medical care such as whether or not to pursue treatment for a serious disease or whether they want to undergo lifesaving procedures; therefore they should be able to decide about medical assisted suicide. Another circumstance when a patient makes a decision regarding life or death for themselves is a Do Not Resuscitate order. The order is filed in order determine a care plan in case of emergency. This is a decision made by the patient for the patient, very similar to how assisted suicide works. A patient also sets up a living wills and advance directives before dying about other circumstances and how to handle them when death approaches.
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.
When it comes to a patient that does not speak English the first thing we have to do is find someone capable and a professional to translate, complying with all the HIPAA regulations are being taken care of and not violated. Whether it is a live person, over the phone service or if available online. We cannot ask a family member to serve as a translator because we might break the patient confidentiality if the patient does not want anybody knowing his diagnosis and the procedures being done to them. With a deaf patient first we have to find out what is the best way to communicate with the patient if by reading lips always face them forward so they can read our lips, speaking clearly so they can understand a little better what we are trying
Introduction People have moral and ethical values that assist them in making decisions about their healthcare on a daily basis. What if a person found out that they had a terminal illness and only had months to live? What if those few months would be filled with treatments, pain and suffering, tear filled family members, and high cost medical bills? Physician- assisted suicide remains a debated topic which causes physicians, nurses and those involved to take a look at what they value and what they are willing to do in order to carry out a patient’s wishes.
In the documentary, Bill Moyers talks to three terminally ill patients, their families, and their doctors about the concerns with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS allows a terminally ill patient to hasten an inevitable and unavoidable death through a lethal dose. The patients considered PAS in order to end their prolonged suffering. The legal role of advance directives in end of life issues allows a patient to specify how he wishes to be treated by a healthcare provider during a progressively weakened state. Advance directives may provide patients with freedom to choose end of life treatment, but moral and religious implications, the ethical battle between a physician’s duty to care and inner-conscious, and state laws pose threats to PAS.
Life or Death Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions.