Ethical Challenges in Withdrawing Life Support

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

The NMC (2015) are the providers of the Nursing Code of Conduct. The code contains the professional standards to which all nurses must uphold, allowing for accountability of patients that come into their care. As well as the code of conduct, all nursing professionals have a responsibility to develop their knowledge in relation to law within clinical practice, and furthermore, ethical frameworks that are linked to judgment and decision making when providing care (Savage & Moore, 2006). In light of this, the overall aim of this essay is to elaborate on issues surrounding law and ethics in nursing. To do so, a case study has been chosen from a previous clinical experience. The focus of the case study will be on the decision of withdrawal from life sustaining treatment. Emphasis will be largely on the law and ethics concerning the issue of withdrawal from treatment. Moreover, the ethics and law involved in the palliative/advanced end of life care planning and decision making. In order to protect the identity and uphold the confidentiality of the case study, a pseudonym will be used throughout. Hendrick (2005) portrays confidentiality as being ‘one of the most important and well established moral obligations of health-care ethics’.

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

Although there are several debates against this view point, it is not up to anyone else to make decisions of the ill and infirm. As such it should be recognized that “patients have a right to make

The healthcare system is complex with nearly every decision made posing an ethical dilemma for patients, providers, and healthcare leaders. With an influx of new medical knowledge from evidence based practices and new technologies more decisions are being made available to patients and families. Terminally ill patients for instance are faced with numerous options when it comes to treatment including whether or not they end their life by terminating treatment altogether or seek controversial options such as Physician’s Assisted Suicide. The topic of Physician’s Assisted Suicide or (PAS) is very intricate with numerous pros and cons, moral ethics, and ways to address the issue within the healthcare practice.

A physician cannot force a patient to undergo a procedure or treatment against his or her will. Physicians must make informed refusal an integral part of their informed consent process. Physician should understand what patients' needs and balance between the psychological need and social and physical health. Sometimes, the stress environment of the doctor made him frustrated and they don't spend enough time with their patient to get the optimum information and don't show interest about patients’ psychosocial problems. When a patient feel that their doctors have a lack of knowledge of other treatment options may also contribute to why patients refuse our treatment plan. Good physician-patient relationship allows a trusting relationship to develop. Most patients will agree to doctors’ treatment strategies if they have a good communication and patients are kept fully informed by their

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.

A Patient's Rights to Refuse Treatment and How it Relates to Learned Helplessness of Individuals

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.

Patients in the United States have a right to refuse care if treatment is being recommended for non-life-threatening illnesses according to the Washington School of Medicine (2012). The simple task of refilling a prescription, or choosing to not get a flu shot are all acts of not following through with treatment mechanisms. Patients often times refuse medical treatment for far more reasons than just religious beliefs. Subconscious emotion reasons about side effects, pain, healing time, and the procedure itself scares patient’s away (Washington School of Medicine, 2012).

The people involved should know all of the options before they make a decision. The patient’s condition should be taken into account. Each patient has a different disease or illness, severity, symptoms, and medical conditions. For example, section 166.049 of Texas’s Advance Directives Act doesn’t allow life support to be removed or refused if the patient is pregnant. In that case, both the baby and the mother would die if the mother was taken off of life support, but even then the ethics of that situation can differ from person to person and the laws could differ depending on the state’s abortion laws. Also, while money should not be the deciding factor, it should be taken into account. Back when Jahi McMath was on life support in 2013, the cost of the treatment in the intensive care unit was $2,000 to $4,000 a day at the very

Wow Christine, this is a great topic to ponder on. I don’t think that I have a strong stance on whether I’m pro or against life support. I feel that life support should initially be used to prolong life or death until a physician can run all medical test on a patient. Usually these medical test will tell you if there is brain activity going on. However, when organs begin to shut down I don’t think that a patient should be left on a life support machine.

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

There are many ethical issues that the medical field faces daily. One major issue that is a common debate recently is death and dying and the ethical dilemmas associated with this stage in life. There are many different routes a patient can take when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness, two routes that are often up for debate are palliative care and physician assisted suicide. Many ethical concepts are brought up in the debate of these routes of care, sometimes even conflicting one another. Since medicine has advanced over many years we are experiencing a growing population of elders. With this increase in the elderly population, the debate of death and dying has become an important topic to

Should there be ethical limits to the use of medical technology to prolong life? An example of technology to prolong life would be life support. There are many types of life support such as ventilators, artificial nutrition and hydration (or tube feeding), and kidney dialysis. There are many positives to life support but just like anything else there are also negatives. In some cases life support just prolongs the patient’s suffering. In other cases life support can harm the family members by giving them false hope. There are many scenarios in which life support can be used, such as when a patient is waiting for an organ transplant. When many think of life support they always assume that the case is extreme. However this is not the case, someone who is on life support can still live a relatively normal life and not be confined to a hospital. Many elderly people have pacemakers to help keep their heart running. While, they might have to visit the doctor more often to make sure the pacemaker is in prime condition they can still hang out with the family and go to their grandchild’s talent show. Keep in mind that there are still very extreme cases in which someone might need to be put on life support and that this is not a light topic. When a family member is put on life support for whatever reason when is the right time to take them off? Should there be different regulations depending on what kind of life support it is? Should there be ethical limits?