Is this true? Do we have 'rights' that extend to ending our own lives? Is it possible to kill yourself without there being consequences for other people? And how much importance should the effects on others be given? Some similar issues are also raised by physician assisted suicide (PAS).
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
I feel the appropriate standard of care for the case study would be for the doctor to perform the procedure. Since the patient is incoherent and can’t decide for herself. The wounds from falling must have been bad enough were it could have been too dangerous to wait for the kin to agree to care or the patient. In these situations I think it’s up to the medical staff mainly physician to decide what is appropriate care at the time. The patient had a severe head wound which needed attention right away.
Leaving a medical facility against a physician’s advice puts a patient at risk for untreated or incompletely treated medical issues, increases the need for subsequent readmission or visits to emergency departments and increases the risk of mortality. DAMA presents a dilemma not only to the attending physician but to the nursing staff caring for the patient. Ethically and legally, patients do have the right to agree to or retract consent for medical treatment; however the nursing management of DAMA is much more complicated and multi-faceted than the patient’s right to consent or dissent to treatment. Problems occur with the understanding of the different types of self-discharge from emergency departments, as well as how best to document such encounters and ultimately, how to improve upon current nursing
Advance directive laws merely give doctors and others immunity if they follow it, the only reliable strategy is to discuss your values and wishes with your healthcare providers ahead of time to make sure they are clear about what you want. Although, a doctor can be held liable in a court of law for not following those orders. There is a limited amount of time in which a patient can make a medical malpractice claim. The statute of limitations for these claims may vary by each state. Life and Death Issues in Healthcare A Review of the Case Study During a scheduled appointment a patient is given the unfortunate diagnosis of colon cancer.
However the newspaper published an article ‘Scandal of Docs with AIDS’ implying that the Department of Health and Social Security were trying to hide the fact that these doctors were continuing practice. The ethical dilemma of who had the greater rights the doctors not to have their patient confidentiality breached or their patients right to know that they were infected with the virus will be discussed. The AIDS/HIV Discrimination Act, The Data Protection Act and The Cauldicott Principles will be discussed as they have a huge impact on patient confidentiality. Relevant court cases, journals and media articles will be studied and Griepp’s model of ethical decision making will be applied. Patient autonomy has changed patient attitudes towards doctors over the last 30 years.
Medical Identity Theft What is medical identity theft? How many people have been victimized by this crime? Ways to protect yourself from this crime. What to do if you have already been a victim of this crime, why it is important to fix the errors on your medical record if you have been a victim of medical identity theft. Medical identity theft is when someone uses your personal identity to use your medical insurance benefits to get free medical services and/or make false claims to gain financial assistance by using your identity.
Kjell Asplund and Mona Britton, authors of Ethics of life support in patients with severe stroke, argue that there is a specific protocol that should be followed in order to deal with the multitude of ethical complications coma patients introduce. I disagree with this argument, because I think that the quantification of one’s life is an inhumane and ineffective method of treating patients. As an idealistic student aspiring to pursue allopathic medicine, I believe that the field I immerse myself in should not be an environment bogged down with impediments to moral action. Instead of a rigid method, I think that a case-by-case method remains the most appropriate action for patients with severe brain malfunctions. Before we delve into the moral implications surrounding care for stroke patients, it is important to understand what a stroke is.
If a person is suffering in unbearable pain and cannot enjoy life then euthanasia would be the best option to help that person die a dignified and peaceful death, rather than a period of lost dignity and prolonged suffering. Current laws state that active euthanasia is illegal in most of the country. Patients can refuse medical treatment and receive pain management, even if the patient’s choices hasten their death. Futile or burdensome treatments, such as life support machines, may be withdrawn under specific circumstances. Under federal and some state laws medical facilities need consent from patients or, in the event of incompetency of the patient, informed consent of the legal surrogate.
That is to say, that a person that has a terminal painful cancer or a long suffering person in a vegetative state can choose to die before the body dies on its’ own, or leave their wishes stated in an advance directive to their family along with a do not resuscitate order to the doctor. That is called the Right to Die. This paper will explore The Right to Die. Along with the subject matter this paper will answer the following questions but not necessarily in order according to the Kaplan University requirements are: Is this true from a legal standpoint? Why or why not?