Patient autonomy has changed patient attitudes towards doctors over the last 30 years. Medical paternalism has been replaced with patient-centered medicine. (Hope et al 2004, p.9). Patient confidentiality is enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath, swearing to practice medicine morally and ethically that anything in connection with professional practice and the patient will be kept secret. (Montgomery 2003, p29).
Summative Assessment 2014/15 LLB Module Code: LAWS 3085 Module Title: Health Care Law 1 Module Coordinator: John Coggon Question 2: A fundamental principle of Health Care Law is that adult patients should be free to give or withhold consent for any reason or no reason at all. In practice, however, might it be argued that some decisions are so irrational that the courts should not always respect this principle? You must illustrate your arguments by reference to a number of different areas of health care law, exploring the nature of the subject as a whole. Name: Genesis Dann Stillwell Student ID no: 25582321 Introduction It is a well-established fact that the law conceives patient autonomy as paramount in the context of health care. An adult patient, who has mental capacity, can give or withhold consent to a medical treatment for any reason, either rational, irrational or non-existent, or no reason at all.
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.
Kant advocatesd duty-based or deontological ethics, which focuses on what people do, not the consequences of their actions. People have the duty to do the right thing, even if it produces less good. In the case of Lorraine Bayless, the nurse’s’ refusal to perform CPR violated her duty to provide basic medical help. While doctors are required to follow the Hippocratic Oath, nurses follow The Nightingale Pledge. In the pledge is a sentence that says, “[I will] devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.” Nurses have a duty to help those in need of medical attention.
Socialized medicine is in direct violation of the precepts of the constitution set forth by the founding fathers. Finally, socialized medicine threatens the very existence of American exceptionalism in medicine. The very imperfect systems of socialized medicine that have already been implemented have breached duty and if the new contortions of civil liberty, that is socialized medicine, continue then the caliber of care now seen by patients will be ancient history. So do not cower from the hardship of provisioning, or from the danger of individuality, and soon success will come and provision will
Complicating matters Mr. Y called his niece, Ms. H., who arrives at the hospital before him. Dr. K sees her and proceeds to discuss the patient's privileged and protected health information in a public area while inferring she must provide consent for placing patient on a ventilator. This is extremely unethical and unprofessional
ETHICAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF PSYCHIATRIC MENTAL HEALTH NURSING (Jan. 2, 2012) ETHICAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF PSYCHIATRIC MENTAL HEALTH NURSING I. Introduction Nurses are constantly faced with the challenge of making difficult decisions regarding good and evil or life and death. Nursing competency and client care accountability are compromised when the nurse has inadequate knowledge about the laws and regulate the practice of nursing. Knowledge of the legal and ethical concepts presented will enhance the quality of care the nurse provides in his/her legal psychiatric-mental health nursing practice and also protect the nurse within the parameters of legal accountability. The relationship between psychiatry and the law reflects the tension between individual rights and social needs.
feeding tube fitted, nor was he a candidate for Total Parenteral Nutrition (T.P.N.) infusion, due to abnormal blood analysis. The ethical dilemma then lies with the patients’ autonomy vs. a nurses’ paternal instinct to act in their best interests. This assignment will consider the statement “…ignorance of the law is no defence and the nurse should be aware of the limits which the law imposes on her, and also the power it gives her” (Dimond 2005). It will try to give interpretation of this statement by mentioning the situation above throughout, which highlights a number of ethical and legal dilemmas - while maintaining confidentiality by protecting the patients’ identity using obscurity (NMC 2004).
According to Morrison-Valfre’s Foundations of Mental Health Care, the definition of ethics is “A set of rules or values that govern right behavior. Ethics reflect values, morals and principles of right and wrong.” Also, according to Morrison-Valfre’s Foundations of Mental Health Care, the definition of laws is “The controls by which a society governs itself. They are derived from rules, regulations, and moral and ethical principles. Laws apply to every member of society.” What happens when these two very important guidelines clash? A patient’s “privilege”, the definition by law, is the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship.
Many of the arguments made by the pro-life team take a moral, ethical, or religious standpoint in their persuasion of others. In order for us to gain a more objective look at the debate with real-world pros and cons, the moral, ethical, and/or religious arguments will not be covered. Abortion has been a topic of controversy in America for almost two hundred years. The earliest known instance of conflict occurred in 1821 when Connecticut outlawed the selling of poisons used to induce abortion in women (Abortion ProCon.org). In 1845, New York began the trend of slapping legal consequences for women who have abortions.