In 1983 Elizabeth Bouvia, who was a 26-year-old quadriplegic that suffered from cerebral palsy, entered a hospital in Riverside, California wishing to starve herself to death. Elizabeth Bouvia suffered from cerebral palsy and severe arthritis causing her to be in chronic pain and close to being completely paralyzed. Bouvia was only able to make movement in some fingers on her right hand and make few facial movements. Elizabeth Bouvia was unable to sit up and could only lay flat causing her to be confined to her bed, and further causing her to depend on others for even the simplest tasks. Bouvia relied on others to feed her, bathe her, and help her defecate. Bouvia had no one in her life able to care for her around the clock like she needed, …show more content…
Quality of life, as defined by the patient’s interests and values, is a factor to be considered in determining what is best for the individual. It is permissible to consider quality of life when deciding about life-sustaining treatment” According to the AMA a patient perception of their quality of life and what they have to deal with on an everyday basis plays a role in a patients right to self-autonomy. When a patient has to make a decision regarding their medical treatment, they are rightfully permitted to take into consideration how they view their life, and what they want their quality of life to be. Elizabeth Bouvia viewed her quality of life poorly, and decided she no longer wanted to live a life where she had to struggle when dealing with the simplest of tasks. Taken from the NY Times Archives in article written by Marcia Chamber in April of 1986 the court stated, “…she herself is imprisoned and must lie physically helpless subject to the ignominy, embarrassment, humiliation, and dehumanizing aspects created by her helplessness”, Bouvia was the only one who could judge her quality of life which gave her the right to make any decision regarding her health she deemed best for herself, and the medical practitioners own burdens and views on quality of life could not have any …show more content…
While Bouvia had the right to self-autonomy, the medical practitioners also had an obligation to provide her with the medical care and treatment needed for her survival. Roger Higgs says in On Telling Patients the truth that “ The principal of beneficence – to work for the patient’s good – and the related principal of non-maleficence – ‘first do no harm’ – are usually quoted as the central guiding virtues in medicine.” (Higgs, 614) Here Higgs mentions another basic principal of medical ethics to be considered in Bouvia’s case, and that is of non-maleficence. When dealing with medical cases medical practitioners must keep in mind of the principle non-maleficence, where they have an obligation to prevent and do no harm on to patients. According to of Higgs’ statement of beneficence and non-maleficence being guiding virtues in medicine, Bouvia’s medical practitioners could not have sat around and watched Bouvia starve her self to death. Medical practitioners take a Hippocratic oath that underlies the medical ethics principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. This means if the medical practitioners did not try provide Bouvia with nutrition, and proper medical care they would not have been ‘working for the patients good’, and if the medical practitioners had just sat around watching their patient starve to death they would have been
Bouvia no longer wanted to live the quality of life she had been leading and decided she would rather die. Bouvia’s only request of Riverside General Hospital was to provide her with medication for the unbearable pain she suffered, and provide her a place where she could receive basic care while she tried to die. She decided she was going to end her life by not eating eventually starving herself to death. Believing that Bouvia could survive several more years with proper sustenance the hospital could not allow Bouvia to starve herself, so they began force-feeding her. Bouvia went California county court so she could get the right to be cared for in Riverside General
The concept of autonomy supports capable patients to make their own decisions regarding their care (8). Patient have the “right to decide how one is to live one’s life, in particular how to make critical life-decisions (9)” and one can argue that this right also extends to choosing the manner death (10). This right is also supported by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (11).” The Trial Judge in the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 case ruled that prohibiting MAID would interfere with a patient’s life and infringe on the liberty and security of that patient (5). The prohibition of MAID interferes with a patient’s life because it may lead some patients to end their life early they are still capable of doing so. Furthermore, prohibiting MAID would interfere with the patient’s ability to “make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care” and prevent the patient from having control over his or her bodily integrity that is free from state interference (5). Therefore, the respect for patient autonomy strongly supports Bill
Health care law covers plethora of issues that are considered by health care industry. It provides information on development of hospitals as influenced by medical progress, teaching us the failures, success, and what can be avoided to repeat the failures of the past. Although, Henrietta’s right were clearly violated, back then, it was not considered violated, because protections that we have in today’s law did not exist.
Quality of life is defined as a person’s wellbeing in terms of health and happiness. With a terminal illness, decline in mental and physical abilities is almost always prevalent. Physician assisted suicide would allow patients to end their life when the “patient’s own ‘value threshold’ for life has been crossed” (Breslow). PAS would allow patients to die while they still feel like their life has meaning and is a life worth living. The Journal of the American Medical Association conducted a study on PAS which concluded that “loss of autonomy and dignity, inability to enjoy life and regular activities and other types of mental distress were the dominant motivation” for seeking PAS (Esposito). If a person can no longer partake in anything that they find enjoyable they do not have a great quality of life. Many people “therefore view it as a means of self-preservation – the opposite of suicide” (Quill). One physician, with a mentally ill brother, stated that if his brother was “bed bound and unable to eat due to his dementia progressing, he would not have any reasonable quality of life, and I would not want to prolong his suffering” (Francis). Quality of life can diminish with illness, but through PAS, patients are able to preserve the quality of life that
To what extent was Queen Boudicca the greatest resistance fighter in European history? The greatest resistance fighter is someone who displays courage in the face of adversity, firmly stands for justice against multiple obstacles, and exhibits outstanding leadership abilities. Queen Boudicca was the queen of a Celtic tribe on the island of Britain who led her people to a revolution against the Roman empire’s occupation of the country around 60 AD. Although her revolution ultimately failed, Queen Boudicca was the greatest resistance fighter in European history because she proved women could effectively fight with and lead men at a time when women carried no respect, she joined together many tribes of people to achieve a result, and she ended up posing a significant threat to Roman control over Britain.
Brittany Maynard stated in an article she wrote on CNN, “Having this choice at the end of my life has become incredibly important. It has given me a sense of peace during a tumultuous time that otherwise would be dominated by fear, uncertainty and pain (Maynard, Brittany).” Since Brittany Maynard had gotten her prescription of euthanasia knowing that she could use it at any point she felt a sense of calm at the end of her life and felt that she could now die with dignity. The rest of her life didn’t have to be painful. Since she did have a terminal brain disease she had spent most of the last year of her life in tremendous pain, and once Brittany is refused treatment, she felt relieved. In contrast to Brittany’s story is the story of a woman named Pam Parlanti. This woman had unendurable arthritis pain near the end of her life and could barely get out of bed. Although she requested multiple times to die, her body held on for 11 days after her request and she died angry that others should have control over how she wanted to die (Parlanti, Steve). The story of Mrs. Parlanti proves that without the right to have voluntary doctor assisted suicide people will be forced to suffer for the remainder of their life even though the quality of their life is immensely poor. Family members watch their loved ones deteriorate this
In “Everyone Deserves to Die with Dignity”, Anita Freeman talks about the agony and struggle her sister went through after being diagnosed with stage four cancer. Freeman’s sister, Elizabeth Martin, was diagnoses with cancer and had limited time to live her on earth. Freeman took on the responsibly of Elisabeth and tried to carry out her every wish. Elizabeth’s biggest fear was dying in pain; this is when Freeman issued palliative care to come in. After multiple visits from palliative care Elizabeth knew this was not the plan for her. The medicine that was issued was not potent enough and would leave Elizabeth in excruciating pain. Freeman lived in California were PAS was not yet legalized, so they had to settle for permanent sedation. Freeman knew that permanent sedation was not what her sister wanted, but based on laws that’s all she could do. After the suffering and pain Freeman felt towards her sister’s situation she became an advocate for Compassion & Choices. Freeman writes in the New York Times that “Currently,
Over the last several decades there have been dramatic developments in Western medical ethics. The form of bioethics now widely adhered to in the United States is 'principlism', an approach originally advocated by the American philosophers Beauchamp and Childress. Principlism argues that in medico-ethical dilemmas, including end of life healthcare situations, ethical principles must be applied (Kessel & Meran, 1998). The following ethical principles are related to advance directives: respect for autonomy (self-determination), non-maleficence (not inflicting harm), beneficence (doing good), and justice (some concept of fairness) (Kessel & Meran, 1998). The leading principle, Autonomy, is the fundamental standard that safeguards a patient the liberty to choose and to govern what happens to their person, in so far as those choices do not harm others. “Autonomy implies that people have an inherent right to make treatment decisions and should be active participants in their own care.” (Kessel
Terri Schiavo, a young 26 year-old girl who collapsed on February 25th 1990. Her potassium level was very low, which is why she had lost consciousness. While she was unconscious she was deprived of oxygen in her brain, long enough to leave her in a “persistent vegetative state,” a condition that is not to be confused with brain death. She could breathe without assistance, but she was incapable of thought or emotion. She was put on a feeding tube because she couldn't eat, she has been like this for 15 years. Then Terri’s husband stated that the hospital should take out her feeding tube and let her starve to death, but Terri’s parents refused and wanted to keep her alive.
In accordance with Missouri Department of Corrections policy D2-11.10-Staff Member Conduct, it is necessary for me to being an issue to your attention. My niece Elizabeth Ann Turner has been under my care and supervision for the past thirteen years. Ann is now nineteen years of age and no longer under guardianship. I was just informed by my niece that a friend of hers was arrested and placed in the Jefferson City jail sometime last week. Upon further inquiry she informed me that he was on parole and that parole had been revoked. My contact with this individual has been minimal. His name is Andrew S. Hopkins and a review of case.net indicated he was convicted of Burglary Second Degree. Upon further checking I was able to determine he had three
ed. For the immense number of ill patients, the solution to their suffering is predominately quality sedative care, of which I ardently encourage. Though there are ill patients who seek sedative care, there is a significant amount of terminally ill patients for whom palliative care is not the solution and who suffer tremendously until they die. These are the type of patients who wish to end their suffering by making the decision to end their lives with the assistance of doctors. This also allows them to end their lives with dignity, and place of their choice. The only way to prevent suffering of this amount is to revise the law so patients are allowed to lawfully receive assistance to peacefully pass away.
Bellevue hospital in new york city has spoke out about this increasing problem. In charge of intensive care at Bellevue is Dr. Ken Berger. Currently he is treating a 72 year old patient who has problems such as Hepatic Failure, Renal Failure, Cardiac Failure, He has no blood pressure and he is septic. This patient of his has shown no indication of getting better and seems to be increasingly getting worse. This man being treated has no chance of survival. Berger's patient is suffering and cannot function normally. In 1990 the supreme court passed a law aimed at stopping prolonging life treatments. However New york lawmakers Have twisted the decision to make it actually more difficult to stop prolonging life treatments. This law requires consent
Bouvia had been through a series of devastating ordeals in the two years preceding her request for help in ending her life: The graduate program in social work at San Diego State University violated her federally protected civil rights. Bouvia dropped out of school, and the state Dept. of Rehabilitation repossessed her wheelchair-lift-equipped van. (Instead of urging her to fight this discrimination, Richard Scott declared publicly: "Quadriplegics cannot work.")
Elizabeth Crotteau will be responsible for gaining the knowledge and understanding the skills related to caring for a wound of ranging severity. Caring for patients will require that Ms. Crotteau will assist Mr. Eck in supportive tasks that can be completed without certification. She will understand what it takes to interact with patients and other co-workers, while gaining knowledge about causes and treatments of wounds along with other medical issues. Ms.Crotteau will work a total of 35 hours during the spring.
Then, in a 5-to-4 decision the Court states that a person who is incapable of making such decision cannot exercise the rights. Since there was not enough “clear and convincing” evidence that Nancy Beth Cruzan wanted to refuse to such medical treatment, the Court stated that it is constitutional to preserve human life in the state of Missouri. Due to the fact that family members will not always make the correct decision in choosing to withdraw treatment, the court concluded that the evidence must be heightened in order to make the final