Case Analysis : The House Of Lords

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) introduced a statutory framework for advance decision making in England and Wales building upon the common law recognition of advance decisions. Academics considered that a bias may operate against upholding advance decisions refusing life-sustaining treatment 1. It’s commonly felt that judges usually give decisions favouring preservation of life and making advance decisions invalid on various grounds. Recent case-law indicates that a high level of specificity is required for advance refusals of life-sustaining treatment and, in some capacity must be demonstrated at the time of making the decision. This essay will argue the legal back ground of the advance decisions and relevant case law. There are suggestions that advance care planning (ACP) instead of advance decisions (ADRT) may be more helpful when it comes to the practice of law on ground 2.

Hello all, my name is David Jamison, MHA. I am representing Marion General Hospital as the committee chairman of the ethics committee. I am currently reviewing the case involving female patient Margie Whitson. The patient is a 95 year old patient whom wishes to have her pace maker “turned off”, due to her unwillingness to live. The death of her only remaining son was the last event that, that had forced her to contemplate the reason why she still lives. Mrs. Margie Whitson is no stranger to loss. When she was younger, she lost her youngest son to a severe motor vehicle accident that took his life at the early age of 30. She injured herself over 10 years ago, and received a hip fracture. Her most recently bout was

The law effectively covers situations in which a patient can personally consider the effects of terminated treatments, but does not provide for situations in which the patient is incompetent to inform agents of their desires. Conflict occurs when the court requires evidence for consent to end lifesaving medical treatment, which could be otherwise avoided should the Act be amended to accommodate the needs of the patient (for example, conversations held in passing being held as evidence). The Act should be amended to allow families to make the judgment rather than the patient themselves (such as in Re BWV, Ex Parte Gardner (2003) 7 VR 487, 491[19]). Although it is possible to make decisions on a patient’s behalf, clarification by the Victorian state is needed. The legislation fails to make distinctions between the patient’s desires and what is in their best

The chief ethical implication is the violation of the patient’s desire to not be intubated and go on the ventilator. The patient has an advanced directive, a legal document, which clearly states that he does not want to be on a ventilator. The patient does not appear to have changed his mind since the document was drawn up, as evidenced by the patient shaking his head and stating “no” when confronted with the physician’s desire to place the patient on the respirator.

Very often, deliberate decisions are made which results in the end of a life. For example, a person could be kept on life support, but instead, a family member or other significant person might choose to switch off the life support machine resulting in the official death of a patient. There is also the case that resuscitation of a patient may eventually prove to be trivial and a doctor might suggest just making the patient as comfortable as possible until their eventual passing. In the above situations, a medical professional’s decisions would not be questioned or doubted. It is conventional practice (Warnock and MacDonald 2008).

The medicinal experts on staff for the 12 hours that the patient was in painful distress while she was being drowned by the feeding solution, neglected to perceive that she was in trouble until it was past the point of no return. While this is obviously a blatant case of medicinal negligence, not all medical malpractice cases are quite so obvious, and not every single medical procedure with a troublesome result can be viewed as medical malpractice negligence. The essential prerequisite for medical malpractice is that the doctor or other medical expert has breached the acknowledged standard of care for their specialty in their geographic area, and that the breach caused harm to the patient. Doctors, as human beings, commit errors consistently, yet in the event that their mistake does not bring about injury or harm to the patient, there are no grounds for lawful

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

In this case, the night of January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan was driving a car and lost control of her car as she traveled down Elm Road in Jasper County, Missouri. The car overturned, and Nancy Cruzan was discovered lying face down in a ditch without detectable respiratory and cardiac function. Paramedics were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat at the accident site and she was transported to a hospital in an unconscious state. Then neurosurgeon diagnosed her and found that she is having sustained probable cerebral contusions compounded by significant anoxia (lack of oxygen). The Missouri trial court found that permanent brain damage generally results after 6 minutes in an anoxic state and Nancy was in this stage for 12 to 14 minutes.

This paper will present an argument of how the process of do not resuscitate (DNR) results in an ethical dilemma for workers in the healthcare field. In presenting the argument, this paper will also address the following three course learning objectives: 1) explain the legal rights of individuals as they interact with health care services, 2) analyze the monitoring systems that ensure human rights, legal aspects, and quality

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.

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.

The author will analyse scenario 5 (appendix a) as he has no practical experience of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNAR) and believes this is an excellent opportunity to professionally develop himself in order to improve future patient care. This assignment will reflect, in relation to paramedic practice, on legal, professional and ethical frameworks whilst also considering interpersonal communication theories that impact on the delivery of care. Legal frameworks, including the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Human Rights Act (HRA) 1997, will be scrutinised alongside professional frameworks offered by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), such as the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2012). The impact of these frameworks upon duty of care, consent, capacity and best interests will be examined whilst various interpersonal communication theories will be explored, including transactional analysis and the influence of verbal and non-verbal communication. A conclusion will then be offered with well-supported reasoning for this decision.

Question Number or Title: It has been consistently argued that the judiciary in England and Wales is not reflective of society. Critically consider the explanations for the lack of diversity within the judiciary and the extent to which government legislation and initiatives have tried to increase diversity within the judiciary?

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the

The autonomy of a competent patient is an issue not often debated in medical ethics. Refusal of unwanted treatment is a basic right, likened to the common law of battery, available to all people capable of a competent choice. These fundamental rules of medical ethics entered a completely new forum as medical technology developed highly effective life-sustaining care during the 20th century. Several watershed cases elucidated these emerging issues in the 1960’s and 70’s, none more effectively than that of Karen Ann Quinlan. Fundamentally, this case established that a once-competent patient without the possibility of recovery could have their autonomy exercised by a surrogate in regard to the