Bobbi And Terry's Case Study

The ethical principles for nurses to practice with beneficence and no maleficence. This legal battle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her family was an ethical debate between continuing artificial life or remove her feeding tube by the request of her husband. Using the theories of utilitarianism and deontology can be applied or considered in making the most ethically correct resolution. The cases are very complex and raise many moral and ethical issues. The cases have brought awareness to society of “the importance of discussing end-of-life issues with family members and underscores how an advance directive, a living will and/or durable power of attorney for health care, are a healthcare proxy clarifies and provides evidence of the wishes of an individual regarding end-of-life decisions. Terri Schiavo should impress upon laypersons and professionals alike the uncertainty of the context in which issues of continuation and termination are argued ethically. Nobody knows what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted. She left no advance directive and in its absence her husband says one thing and her parents

In the Schiavo case she had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder, this ended up causing her to be in a PVS. She had no say in her care or her dying. Unable to speak and leaving no written orders or thoughts on how she would want to deal with a situation like this it was left up to the family. Eventually it was decided to stop her tube feedings and hydration.

n the case of 64 year old Mr. Jackson there are many important facts that should be assessed for the decision making process. Some of the most important facts include, he had advanced dementia, cancer and a tumor that could not be cured. Mr. Jackson also had a stroke that caused him to be non-communicative. It is also important to note that Mr. Jackson had no living will or treatment preferences for his family and health care providers to use to help make decisions. Other important clinical information is that Mr. Jackson’s doctors say he needs artificial hydration to survive several more weeks and a feeding tube which could give him from 4 to 6 months survival rate. These medical facts are very important in the decision making process but

At times, patient’s choices may differ from the health professional’s judgment on what is best for him or her. In this situation, the principle paternalism or parentalism comes into play; therefore, when it comes to decision making the health professional acts as if they were the patient’s parent and decides for the client (Doherty & Purtilo, 2005, p. 92). The case of Donald “Dax” Cowart will better help one understand this term because his voice did not matter on his decision to die. Who was “Dax?” Dax was a popular, young athlete who was just released from the Air Force where he served in Vietnam.

There are some ethical dilemmas evident in this scenario, starting with an End of life dilemma, refusal of care and informed consent.“End of

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

The patient would have to continue to be sustained artificially if an erroneous decision not to withdraw the patient's feeding tube. An erroneous decision to terminate the artificial feeding could not be corrected, because it was a cause that could make patient die. The Lower Court had right to give her parent right to look for what is the best interests of the incompetent patient, have power to give evidences regarding the patient wishes. In addition, the imposition of a “clear and convincing evidence” rule has no evidence of having living will of patient. From the fact that a patient did not have a living will, so nobody can conclude that she want to remain in a persistent vegetative state, especially close friends and family member testified that she would not want to remain on life support. After major decision, the Cruzan case was reheard to support “clear and convincing evidence”

The practically speaking, the case of Nancy Cruzan highlights the fact that an individual cannot rely only on telling his would be decision maker what type of care is desired should that individual become incompetent. Such evidence may not be viewed as sufficient to refuse medical treatment as happened with Nancy Cruzan. It thereby becomes important to record exactly what type of treatment should be accepted or refused if one’s decision making capacity is lost. The most common way to do this is in the form of an advance directive. Such a document would declare not only who the patient wants a surrogate decision maker, but also relates the degree of treatment desired by the patient. The presence of an advance directive makes caring for incompetent patients much easier because confusion over the patient’s wishes is avoided. Had Nancy Cruzan made an advance directive, withdrawing the artificial nutrition

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

Everyday, healthcare professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their workplace. These ethical dilemmas need to be addressed in order to provide the best care for the patient. Healthcare professionals have to weigh their own personal beliefs, professional beliefs, ethical understandings, and several other factors to decide what the best care for their patient might be. This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brains hemispheres which has left her unconscious. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for support. She is unable to communicate how she wishes to proceed with her healthcare. Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank feels his mother would want. In the healthcare field, there are situations similar to this case that happen daily where moral and ethical judgment is necessary to guide the decision that would be best for the patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss, compare and contrast the personal and professional values, ethical principles, and legal issues regarding Mrs. Smith’s quality of life and further plan of care.

For a family-owned business like Bob’s it was very hard for them to not only take hits from competition and big-box superstore, but the economic environment did not help in the sustainability for them as well. One of the major economic environmental changes that affected the survival and challenged Bob’s the most was the increase in minimum wage. The minimum wage was $5.15 prior to 2007 and by mid-2009 it had continued to grow to $7.25 (Parnell, 2014). The timing of the changes was right when Bob’s felt like they were just getting back on their feet and remodeling of the business. Due to the small size of Bob’s made it hard for them to continue to employ all their employees, compared to the larger companies. The store was approximately paying out $85,696 ($5.15 * 320 hrs work/wk = $1,648 a wk * 52 wks) in salary to 3 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees, and with the increase in minimum wage increase to $7.25 it rose to $120,640 ($7.25* 320 hrs work/wk = $2,320 a wk * 52 wks), causing a difference in two and

The best possible resolution for this case would be to, first, to identify what Andrea would want to do for her end of life care. When her condition was deteriorating but before the cardiac arrest, the parents, social workers, nurses, and the physician should assess Andrea’s pain and suffering, asking her to express what she thinks she would want in the end. Harrison et al. (1997) supports this argument, claiming, “Parents and physicians should not exclude children and adolescents from decision making without persuasive reasons.” “Physicians should ensure that good decisions are made on behalf of their child patients” (as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000, p. 163). It was also argued that, children of primary-school age, like Andrea, can participate in medical decisions, indicating their

Every seriously ill patient and their family should have decided the following issues: proxy, resuscitation, hospitalization, and specific treatments. Every seriously ill person needs to have pointed out a person to speak on their behalf when they get too sick to do so. A “proxy” can be filled out at any hospital or nursing home granting “power of attorney” to a loved one to be able to make decisions. A person

It is also clear that while making these decisions, the decisions ought to be made based on informed consent (Werth and Crow 195). Sometime, the patient may be experiencing dementia, clinical depression or delirium for which they may be affecting the patient’s decision making capabilities (Werth and Crow 197, 198). If such a person is allowed to make their right-to-die decision, this may be done without the patient having comprehensive information before consent and thus should not be encouraged (Werth and Crow 198).

This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brain hemispheres which has left her unconscious and unable to make medical decisions for herself. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for life support. Mrs. Smith did not set up an advanced directive, which is defined by Miracle (2011) “mechanism by which individuals make known how they want medical treatment decisions made when they can no longer make them for themselves” (p.229). Without an advanced directive, medical decisions will fall to Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank. Each of which have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life with continued medical intervention, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank