Ethical Dichotomy

2. generally right to decide treatment: Patients generally have the right to decide their treatment however; others measures of treatment should be discussed with the patients. Patients should be competent when deciding to refuse treatment and understand what their options are, however; this should not include physician assisted suicide. Patients do not have to suffer or be in pain, there are many medical options to help the patient through palliative care that will keep them comfortable.

One of the biggest argument concerning this case and others like it, is that these patients, considering their mental conditions, could not actually have given informed (i.e., sane) consent because the request itself is considered “wrong” by society’s standards.

The Dax’s case study presents convincing evidence to consider and legalize the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and the right to die. Patients, as under the informed consent have a right to make the decisions about their medical treatment (Harris, 2008, p. 198). Consequently, the Dax’s case has reasonable facts to believe with regards to informed consent that as a competent patient he is qualified and be given free choice over his life.

It is a basic principle of law in this country that an adult, mentally competent person has the right to refuse treatment. The court of appeal has emphasised that provided the patient has the necessary mental capacity, which is assessed in relation to the decision to be made, then he or she can refuse to give consent for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all (Dimond, 2008). However, in this case it is in the best interest of the patient that the MDT administrated medication covertly. The legal issue identified in this case relates to the issue of consent. Within the case study professionalism had to challenged when it came to the capacity of the patient. The MDT had to resolve the legal issues associated with capacity and consent.

As stated in Joseph A. Carrese’s article “Refusal of Care: Patient’s Well-Being and Physicians’ Ethical Obligations,” introduces the fundamental principles and responsibilities that physicians have in order to preserve the welfare of their patients in any circumstances. On the other hand, Debbie Dempsey, author of “Refusing Treatment: Practical, Legal, and Ethical Issues,” strongly supports the patient’s right to make their own medical choices, whether it be to accept or decline any help. W.D Ross solidifies the dependent yet incompetent patient to not refuse care and treatment because the physician has a duty of fidelity, beneficence and a duty to

The main focus of this paper is how the rights and decisions of terminally ill patients may impact the rest of us. The audience of this research paper is made up of physicians and nurses practicing physician assisted suicide, patients with terminal illnesses, families of patients with terminal illness, and judges and jurors dealing with cases in this field. The purpose of this paper is to help others understand the importance of this topic and become informed on how the denial of assisted suicide can affect patients.

Autonomy is more than a bioethical principle that promotes an individual’s ability to choose their own life path. It is a concept that varies by kind and by degrees. While Western medicine holds patient autonomy as a right, every right has its limitations. One such constraint on an individual’s autonomy, is the individual deciding whether or not to take a medication for their mental illness. This was the case for one of Dr. Brendel’s patients, “Lisa.” In this essay, I suggest that even though Lisa is depressed, Lisa made an autonomous decision to take her medication; and if she refused to take her medication, I would not obtain a court order.

As ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill says, “The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty...In particular, this Court’s recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.” This explains that a terminally ill and mentally stable person has the right to decide on bringing upon his or her death. In addition, Faye Girsh, Senior Advisor of Final Exit Network says, “At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality… Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights-the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent.” This statement shows keeping a terminally ill patient alive, forcing them to suffer before death, which they will eventually die soon enough, is a cruel

The rights and limitations of an individual’s decision making include, various issues like written or oral consent from patient or a representative, and patient’s mental ability to make decisions about their treatment. According to the common law right of 1891, the decisions regarding the treatment are made by individuals with decision making capacity and even after they lose their capacity their decisions do continue. An adult is said to have decision making capacity when they attain the age of 18 or when the person is not deemed incompetent by the court or when the results of the decision are well understood by the individual. In conditions of temporary incapacity, close family members can make the decision and if time doesn’t permit during emergency, the health care providers can decide about treatment to save the life. According to the right of self-determination, any competent individual who cannot handle the treatment can reject completely (Steiner, 2014).

Refusal of treatment allows for an individual to refuse the recommendations set forth by their physician if they are found to be of sound mind to make that decision. This option does allow for a person to have a say in their medical care and dying process however may not take away their pain and suffering which in turn could affect their overall quality of life. The final legal option is a living will or advance directive. This is an officially binding document drawn up by an individual which allows them the capability to make medical decisions in the event they become incapacitated to do so (Nordqvist).

The right to self-determination of dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths. Suffering becomes unfair and inhumane when they are forced to endure intolerable pain. Physicians must instruct and verify that a mentally competent and terminally ill person has all the qualifications to apply for death with dignity act. A person should have protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own

When a mentally ill patient becomes too incapacitated to properly give consent for a research experiment, should the experiment team stop and allow the procedure to continue? In the case study, “The Monitor’s Consent”, a researcher apart of the Department of Psychiatry questions the ethics of this situation. The nurse providing care for the impaired schizophrenic patient tries to persuade the researcher that both the subject and his monitor agreed to the operation before, however, they are now becoming increasingly symptomatic to his own illness and sedatives. Even though they did give consent prior to the medication, the researcher is concerned that they were too incapacitated due to their own disease to give consent. The patient, Mr. Young, did not sign an advance directive beforehand to allow

There is much controversy in regards to how far a practitioner should go to protect a patient's well-being, whilst trying to adhere to their rights and consent of treatment methods (Feldman, 1990, p. 261). The most ethical solution is to only resort to extreme methods of treatments if the patient is clearly seen as not being mentally stable enough to provide the right judgement call, and if they are in a life-threatening situation in which they could potentially harm themselves or others. In cases where patients are not mentally stable enough to give their consent, their family, guardians, partners, or an authorized

This assignment will be analysing the Adult Nursing Case Study based on Mr Smith. This can be found on Blackboard and the Moral Dilemma is concerning a 67 year old gentleman admitted onto the Medical Admissions Unit (MAU). Mr Smith, suffering a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), denied consent to the treatment that could potentially improve his health. The Multidisciplinary team and his family members tried to stress the importance of the treatment however he further refused. The medical staff chose to bypass Mr Smith’s decision and treat him anyway. They did this because the doctors came to the conclusion that he did not have the capacity to make that decision. His decision is supported by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which states if the person

By the 1980s, at least in the United States, additionally the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) in 1990 there is a consensus on that allow the patient to refuse treatment given that refusing treatment may lead to death is one of the patient’s right (Koch, 1992; Bishop, Brothers, Perry, & Ahmad, 2010).