Chapter 2: Principles of Autonomy and Informed Consent The principle of autonomy states one shall not treat a patient without the informed consent of the patient or his or her lawful surrogate, except in narrowly defined emergencies. The patient’s free will is exercised even though they may not demonstrate the capacity of developing their own decisions. The health care professional, by irrefutable law, is required to respect patient’s rights while providing a clear understanding to the consequences of their decisions. Although some patients are legally incompetent they are still ethically competent to make decisions about their treatment. The informed consent presents the treatment information in an understandable manner in an effort to avoid any misunderstandings leading to a possible delay in care.
Whereas by definition, paternalism restricts a person’s right to autonomy, and takes another person’s autonomous right away and makes decision on their behalf, even if it is contrary to the wishes of the patient (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Paternalism with Mrs Jones was not the case, yet with regards to safeguarding her from further harm justice, beneficence and non-malfeasance would have been insuring long term interest. To be deemed competent professionals work within trust guidelines and trust protocols and must treat patients fairly, without discriminating against them; ensuring that the patient is able to make autonomous decisions regarding their own care (NMC
Physician Assisted Suicide Why is it only ethical to die “naturally”, after a long illness filled with highly “un-natural” life extending medical procedures? Over the last twenty years, physician assisted suicides have become a sensitive issue in governmental offices as whether to legalize such an option. Even though many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others, and some believe it violates a portion of a doctors’ Hippocratic Oath, Physician Assisted Suicide should be a legal option for those with terminal diseases or conditions because reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Physician assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration
Soft determinists therefore believe that events to be determined but also believe that free will does exist and still can be applied to our actions. Soft determinists defend compatibilist and say that even though they accept determinist thesis, we still believe in freedom. If we cannot establish that actions are completely determined then soft determinists have to believe in free will. If we knew everything then we might be able to predict a person’s actions but since this cannot be done and is a big if, which is the heart of the determinist thesis, turns out to be unobtainable in practice; this simply means that in theory we are still determinists but we can also believe in free will and hold people responsible for their actions. (Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act.
The most common argument raised by proponents of physician-Assisted suicide, is that people should not endure suffering; they have the right to die with dignity, and their autonomy should be respected by law. However, this composition will debate three unethical standpoint of legalizing Physician-Assisted suicide. First I will argue that it is unethical, that it is a slippery slope to voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia, and it is a gateway for unscrupulous
Being a travel nurse, I do not feel comfortable adhering to this standard. In one instance, I did not allow the sedation until a physician was present. Looking back, I would not have done anything differently because the most important concept is patient safety. Giving sedation prior to a call-to-order, or time-out, is not focused on patient safety. One article detailed that when given an ethical dilemma it is important to “engage in a process of ethical analysis†(Chaloner, 2007, p.43).
We all have an idea that the act was an unlawful one, to handle another human beings life as something we can take control over whenever we see fit. From an ethical standpoint, I can understand how the doctors did what was done, but moral they had no right to make a unanimous decision to end lives. The laws may vary from state to state the U.S. Supreme Court has walked into this arena, but the end effect has been to let the state decide what to do. “The Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by doctors, states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, or give advice which may cause his death” Hippocrates (c. 460 BCÐ380
47). Many people see nurses as compassionate caregivers, but the law doesn’t grant absolute protection for all free-willed acts of benevolence. If a nurse is asked to perform medical care on an individual outside of work in a non-emergency situation, he or she could be held liable if they injure that person. Although they may feel uncomfortable refusing to help, facing them in court could be much worse. As a nurse, advising them to pursue care from a professional who knows their medical history would be a smart thing to do.
This definition only pertains to adults or emancipated minors; it does not allow for mature minors to make their own medical choices. This is where the dilemma evolves: when should a child be able to make his or her own medical care decisions? While controversial, pediatric patients’ rights should be decided based upon autonomy, age and maturity, along with legal and ethical standards. The easiest way to define autonomy is the patient’s right to decide what happens to his or her own body. As stated by Derish and Heuvel, “the long standing assumption made by society…that parents are natural and obvious surrogate medical decision makers…nor does it allow for any degree of autonomy for the mature child…the adults right to refuse medical treatment is ‘gradually becoming absolute,’ minors continue to be denied medical autonomy” (110).
Will there be physicians who feel they can't do this? Of course, and they shouldn't be obliged to. But if other physicians consider it merciful to help such patients by merely writing a prescription, it is unreasonable to place them in jeopardy of criminal prosecution, loss of license, or other penalty for doing