Bobbi And Terry's Case Study

When a patient is unable to make decisions for himself or herself, their caregivers and those who know them are appointed to make the decisions based on what the patient would have wanted. This is called surrogate decision making. According to the article Terri Schiavo and End-of-Life Decisions “when surrogate decision makers and caregivers cannot agree upon what that choice would have been, they may turn to the courts to determine either what the now-incapacitated patient would have chosen or who is best suited to choose as the patient would have” (Mathes, 2005)

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 appellant of the Cruzan v. Missouri case was the parents of Nancy Cruzan, Joe Cruzan and Joyce Cruzan. The Cruzans argued that when they made the decision to hook Nancy up to a feeding and hydration tube they were unaware that Nancy would be in the vegetative state permanently, they thought she would make it (Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503).

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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”

Mr. Bob was accused of stealing things from his employer. He was charge of robbery.His employer notice that things were missing. So his employer set up a surveillance camera for evidence because he had probable cause that someone was stealing. The employer also had a witness there to say that someone was missing when Mr. Bob was working so the employer had enough proof to arrest and charge Mr. Bob for stealing. So the arresting officer after review the tapes and the claims arrested Mr.Bob. While arresting the police officer read Mr. Bob his Miranda rights, the right to remain silent, right to an attorney etc . The employer decide to charge Mr.Bob with robbery. Mr. Bob plead not guilty because he was asked to move the stuff to a different place.

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