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,
In this case study the primary nurse, Amelia Wilkerson, is caring for a patient, Katy Palmer who has recently been admitted to the hospital for fatigue and abnormal lab counts. The patient asks Amelia for information regarding her diagnosis. Amelia has seen Katy’s results and knows that she has been diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia. The ethical dilemma seen in this situation is that it is outside of the scope of practice for Amelia to discuss Katy’s original diagnosis with her. This is reserved for the doctor alone. However, as a nurse that has developed a relationship with her patient it would be very difficult to not answer her question honestly. In addition, the patient might feel more comforted hearing the diagnosis from her nurse rather than the doctor as the nurse has been caring for her and they have developed a therapeutic relationship.
autonomy and quality of care and what will it mean for our practitioners? The healthcare industry is preparing for many changes that have the potential to affect the industry on a large scale. While preparing for all of the current changes, the industry is also preparing itself to face the baby boomer generation, which will increase the number of society member who will be utilizing healthcare services. Healthcare, as an industry is facing a key time to make changes in order to protect its’ assets and the care given to those who utilizes our services. Funding is at a low, and resources have the potential to become scarce. Some patients are arguing that resources
Hospice and palliative care can be easily intertwined; they are both concerned with promoting comfort and relieving patient pain. Hospice and palliative care, however, are different in some aspects. Patients who receive hospice care are nearing the end of their lives and there is no effort to cure their disease; the goal is to provide pain relief, a sense of belonging from family and friends if desired, support through the dying stages, and to assure that the person is able to die with dignity. Palliative care is also focused on reducing discomfort; however, the patient receiving care can be at any stage in their disease. Additionally, palliative care can also be administered during a time when a patient is receiving treatment to cure their illness.
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.
The dying patient no longer has quality of life, they have lost their independence, are lonely, are forced to endure inevitable pain, are publicly humiliated, are suffering immensely, and are forced to watch their loved ones grieve because of them. It is an innate Constitutional Right to choose how to die, since we all will die. There comes a point when the poking and prodding becomes too much, when the patient wants to just die in silence in the loving arms of their
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. Some families can not afford to drop everything in order to take on the full time responsibility of their sick loved one. This adds financial stress to the family and can lead to the desire to resolve the issue by forcing the idea of euthanasia on to the loved one. According to Time.com, one in every four Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life. The result of this is often an overwhelming debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the care of a single patient costing approximately $39,000 exceeding the financial assets for many households. When the patient is uninsured or denied coverage from an insurance company, the family inherits the costs. In cases like these, legalizing euthanasia would present it as a viable solution, and in their distress, the family members may selfishly consider it to alleviate the financial burden the patient may
“Living Will” gives us a better perspective of what doctors today have to face with their jobs. The author, Danielle Ofri, came across a severely ill patient, Wilburn Reston, which really makes her think. The patient happens to be suicidal due to all the critical incidents that have occurred in his life; for instance, the death of his mother and sister, his estranged wife, and his poor health. Mr. Reston was undoubtedly depressed, and in my opinion, his thoughts were rational. Danielle Ofri mentions “Mr. Reston seemed to have a reasonably realistic grasp on his situation, I wasn’t sure I had a grasp on mine.” Owing to the fact that his thoughts were realistic, Ofri was struggling on agreeing with her patient’s thoughts. She states, “Doctors aren’t supposed to agree with patients who say they want to kill
Being offered these services further highlights his declining health. This hospice clinical made me experience a variety of emotions. My first initial emotions were nervousness and awkwardness, I believe I felt this way because I have never been directly involved with hospice. The second wave of emotions consisted of sorrow and hopelessness. I felt these emotions because I couldn’t fathom being in their situation, but then I realized I cannot let these emotions affect the way I care for this patient and his family. The last of my emotions were compassion and motivation. I was motivated to be compassionate for the patient and his family. Upon entering the patient’s room I finally understood my place and part of how to care for this patient. This hospice clinical will affect me for years to come, it taught me how to show compassion even when I am scared for the patient. It taught me that just because my patient is dying, or is very much near death, doesn’t mean that they are unaware of their condition. I honestly feel that this hospice experience has made me a better person, and it will make me a better
We went to Lake Side Assisted living to meet with a 98-year-old woman who was recently diagnosed with end stage cardiac atherosclerosis. We were referred by the primary care doctor to admit the patient today. However, it did not go as smooth as one would hope for. We met with the patient 's family, which consisted of the son and daughter in law. After a quick assessment of the family, it was clear the son and daughter in law had the final decision. I
Make and keep your major health decisions with advance health care directives. While they vary by state, advance directives can carry significant importance, especially as one gets older and increasingly concerned with health care and end-of-life decisions. Typically, two basic advance directives can cover a patient’s needs: the durable power of attorney for health care and the living will. Both serve the purpose of empowering the individual concerning personal health care in the case of incapacitation by illness or injury.
The question remains do advance directives and living wills work for the homeless. Patients and in Paul’s case he may have a different opinion to what is his quality of life. For the health care team, they fought for Paul. Paul was unable to voice his desires, the medical team respected him. They were sensitive to his circumstances, his inability to care for himself, and remained his advocate. Attempts were made by the health care team to find a surrogate or family for Paul. He died with dignity and he died free from suffering. The ANA Code of Ethics directs nurses to practice “with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every individual, unrestricted by considerations of social or economic status, personal attributes, or the nature of health
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.
Pro-Side: By allowing the family to be present during resuscitation of their loved one they are made aware of everything that was done to revive the patient. This could be beneficial to the family member in the circumstance that the patient doesn’t survive so that the family would know for sure that everything possible was done. This may help with the grieving process of the family in that they would not dwell on what more could have been done for their loved one. After the patient passes, the family becomes the nurses primary focus and it is our responsibility to help the family along in the grieving process. As for the patient being resuscitated, the patient may want their loved one to be by their side in case they don’t make it, and if the policies prohibited the family’s presence, the patients dying wishes would not be followed.
Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.