Incompetent Patient Case Study

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”

In the case of Donald (Dax) Cowart, one can determine that the conflict is between Beneficence and Autonomy. The doctors were morally right in choosing to treat Donald despite his autonomy by using the principle of beneficence.

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

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.

During the ancient Greek and Roman times’ way before Christianity emerged Euthanasia was not even a matter of concern or issue because human life was not valued as it is today. Many abortions and mercy killing were done and even thought the Hippocratic Oath prohibited physicians from giving a lethal drug to patients or any persons if asked for or not only a few followed the oath. At the time many people advocated for it and physicians acted on it as well, and now people of the 21st century continue to ask for it although the doctors are not as ignorant on the issue as before. According to Medical News Today euthanasia, has an arguable definition of whether it is a death/suicide in a painless manner, however the ignore the fact that they are

“Living Will” by Danielle Ofri is about an author who is a doctor who came across a patient that is suicidal. “They All Just Went Away” by Joyce Carol Oates is about a young lonely girl who finds herself attracted in entering abandoned house and is entranced by other peoples lives and what they left by. Although these stories are very different, I believe both the authors share a similar idea, but different outlooks, of how the main characters in each essay struggle to do the right thing.

This essay discusses the Terri Schiavo 's case during the time period between 1990 and 2005.After Ms. Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, lack of oxygen leads her brain to damage. As a result of this damage, she had to be given a PEG tube to continue her life in the vegetative state. Her husband is appointed as guardian by the court, and Terri 's family do not reject that. Michael Schiavo-her husband- receives about $300,000 and about $750,000 for Ms. Schiavo’s medical care.After three years, he demands the PEG to be removed.However, Terri’s parents don’t want their daughter to be left for dead, hence the court trials, that lasted until 1985-Terri’s death, start.

The appellant, Sue Rodriguez, suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Under this condition, Sue will lose the ability to swallow, speak, walk, and move her body without assistance. As a result, she will eventually become confined to a bed. With a life expectancy between 2 and 14 months, Sue wishes to end her life on her own will when her condition becomes too painful to bear. This can be accomplished with the assistance of a qualified physician. However, s.241 of the Criminal Code prohibits the giving of assistance to commit suicide. Sue Rodriguez applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the grounds that s.241 of the Criminal Code is a violation of her s.7, 12, and 15(1) rights of the Charter. The court dismissed her application

In sickness and in health, until death do us part, is not an invitation to commit murder. On Thanksgiving Weekend, after a party, the Trepalt’s were driving home. It was early in the morning, still dark, when Mr. Trepalt took a corner too fast and lost control of his car. There was an accident. Mr. Trepalt walked away with no injuries, but his wife, Violet, would never be the same again. The accident resulted in her being paralyzed from the waist down, having problems with her fine motor skills, and needing care around the clock. Violet Trepalt, who had once been an independent and active woman, would now spend the majority of the the rest of her life in bed.

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.

The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.

The court decision was to afford the right to the inept persons is to use the substituted judgment. This is a doctrine that close family members or legal guardians substitute their decision for what they consider the terminally ill inept persons, if capable, would have done under these conditions. If such a person, while capable, had implemented the document written living or mercy will, that will would be credible evidence of that inept person 's purpose and it would be given countless weight by the person who substitute their decision on behalf of the lethally ill

The case study that was examined was Paul: No Surrogate. For Paul his situation is becoming more common in healthcare today. Paul does not have a living will or an advanced care plan for his end of life needs. From all indications Paul had been dropped off at the hospital, due to his weight loss, fever, chills, and cough he also probably had some cognitive deficits. He is clearly living on the streets, his value system is one that cannot be answered, but having a “friend” bring him to the hospital, showed he had some social interaction. Paul has no income, poor nutrition, and poor health care management. He even stated that he had never received care in the community. During his treatment in the

I strongly agree that Euthanasia must be legalised in Australia. People who are terminally ill are repeatedly told that they only have several months or years to live. People have the rights to choose whether they end their life with dignity and peace or choose to live a life of misery and agony. Case studies show that more than 80 percent of Australians in opinion polls say that they would like to legalise euthanasia to relieve patients from pain and distress. In 1973 the Netherlands have effectively permitted voluntary euthanasia. Their studies have shown that there was no evidence of any actions that had led to disaster or catastrophe and without any doubt the frequency of ending a life without explicit patient request has not increased over years of study. Research shows that if Australia legalised euthanasia the frequency of patient request to end their lives would not have either been increased over the years of study.

I spoke with the patient 's wife via phone, The wife states that she needs additional assistance for the patient. She states that she is aware that the patient 's health is declining and that she wants him to be comfortable at home. I discussed hospice services with the patient and the wife. The wife states that she would like hospice to evaluate the patient, the patient also agree for hospice to evaluate.