Ex Parte Gardner Vr 487 Case Study

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.

As evidenced by this individual stating “Don’t wait until I’m so sick that I can’t make any decisions about my own body” (J, Nguyen, personal communication, November 20th, 2014). He would want to be able to determine and make his own decisions in regards to his own health like medical interventions – organ transplant, operations, and medications. Therefore, members of healthcare should discuss with the patient about their wishes if events such as palliative care would occur as most people do not have an advanced directive planned. Additionally, it is a part of our role as a member of healthcare to always inform the patient what is happening, why they are taking this medication, and be as honest in regards to the client’s health. I can understand how not informing them information regarding their illness and neglecting their concerns can affect them physically and mentally. Furthermore, this individual does not want to receive futile treatment; especially, since he works in healthcare and understands the cost of medical treatments. The individual was logically and able to reason that if it is not beneficial, there is no need to perform it. Research indicated that “hospital and 6-month mortality rates were significantly higher for patients perceived as receiving futile and probably futile treatment compared with patients perceived as receiving no futile treatment”

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.

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).

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.

One of the major debates regarding doctor assisted dying is the challenge of finding adequate safeguards against the abuse of this right. Safeguards are critical to ensure that the decision to die is made only by people who can understand such a decision and who have made this decision of their own free will. The government is responsible for protecting vulnerable people who may be influenced by others to choose death. Much before and even after the case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 866, there are numerous deliberations about the risks and benefits that surround doctor assisted

The Conscientious Objection bill being debated in the UK would not require medical practitioners to participate in withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, among other things. Some, like Iain Brassington, consider the idea a little confusing since not withdrawing treatment is the same as continuing treatment and forcing a treatment on someone is considered to be battery by law. If the proposed law is saying that unwanted treatment should be continued, then there is no way for the bill to respect the patient’s wishes.

MPs have voted overwhelmingly against changing the law to allow doctors to help terminally ill people end their lives. Opponents were outnumbered supporters by 212, with 330 voting against and 118 in favour. And opinion is not shifting - 74% of MPs voted against this bill compared with 72% back in 1997. Campaigners will regroup and point to their own polls showing 82% of the public back assisted dying and calls for change may yet intensify with an ageing population. The debate was heated on both sides, with many MPs drawing on their personal experiences of dying relatives to give weight to their argument. Most MP’s believed the bill was flawed, it is legally and ‘ethically totally unacceptable.’ In this essay I will look at both sides of the argument and evaluate the provisions and establish the weaknesses of them including the

Ethical dilemma may also arise in cases where a patient may feel their right to DNR should be carried out when giving direct order. The DNR process, however, is required to be documented by a physician. Andrew Putnam (2003) presents a case where an eighty-eight year old patient’s code status was DNR; “However, the patient has never signed formal advance directive statement or assigned durable power of attorney for her health care to anyone.” (Putnam, 2003, 2025) Ethics can be simply stated as doing the right thing (Roberts, 2002, 242); but in this case ethics is questioned because the physician was faced with the decision to carry out the wishes of the patient or to make a decision based on legality. In this case, it may have been morally right to carry out the wishes of the patient who wanted DNR orders carried out, but it may have been the right choice to do the legal thing and not carried out due to lack of signed documentation.

BWV who was a 69-year-old woman resided in a nursing home in Victoria. She suffered from a progressive and fatal dementia, probably Pick’s Disease. Although she was ambulant, she was not able to communicate properly with anyone apart from her husband; therefore, her husband agreed to use artificial feeding via percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube insert into her body. Subsequently, her condition became to persistent vegetation and she stayed approximately three years in hospital before her husband to request artifical feeding cease. However, BWV’s husband was not sure whether it would be lawful or not to withdraw the PEG tube from her body in Victoria; hence, he sought for assistance from the Public Advocate Victoria (PAV) who was

In Australia it is a requirement for a person to give consent when receiving any medical treatment. Whether it be consent by an adult on behalf of a minor or an adult consenting for themselves. This concept appears to be quite candid; however when faced with a complex and challenging situation, it becomes difficult to distinguish the validity of the individual’s consent. The case Re Bruce [2015] will explore the legal and ethical issues of medical consent in exceptional circumstances. The examination of relevant legislation including the Guardianship and Mental Health legislation and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights will assist in answering this question. Furthermore, a number of stakeholder positions, such as spouses, medical practitioners and contents of the law and its application in practice will be investigated in order to identify if this case possess a lawful justification.

To begin with, assisted dying remains highly topical and debated, both in the public and medical arena. Assisted death, incorporates both physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. It gives the freedom to a terminally ill person or a mentally competent adult, to choose on their own free will and after meeting strict legal safeguards, takes prescribed medication which will end their life in dying. There are two types of Euthanasia. Involuntary and voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when a terminally ill individual decides to end their own life, whereas, involuntary euthanasia is when another person makes the decision to end their life on their behalf. In the majority of countries assisted dying is against the law. According to the National Health Service (NHS), In the UK, it is illegal. Assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison in the UK. In this essay, it will be illustrated where assisted dying is legal and how it works, there is going to be an argument for and against assisted dying and it will be explained why assisted dying should be legalised in the UK.

“It is important for all staff to know what it is that the person has asked for” when dealing with patients under end-of-life care (Sander, 2014, p.96). Sander (2014) suggests that staff must first consider the wishes of the person who is dying over the family wishes. Once the patient’s wishes are considered first, then the staff can focus on the family who will be affected by the treatment and care of their loved one (Sander, 2014). After first looking to the patient’s wishes and then family wishes, the staff must consider staff and other residents’ experiences (Sander, 2014). Considering all those factors in that order promotes what Sander (2014) calls a good death. The administrator should have spoken to both Ann and John. Both are trusted persons of interest that Mrs. Smith established during her competent days. Both health proxy and durable power of attorney are important decisions makers. The health proxy makes healthcare decisions for incompetent patients (Pereira, 2013). Durable power of attorney assists communications between medical team and family members (Pereira, 2013). This assures there is respect for the patient’s values and expressed wishes (Pereira, 2013). The administrator did not value the patient’s wish. The administrator did not utilize Mrs. Smith’s trusted

The phenomenon of death is a complex event wrought with controversy both medically and legally. Because the organ systems do not shut down all at once, it is difficult to determine the exact moment of death or the decide how the laws apply to the deceased individual. Although the advancement of medical knowledge and technology significantly decreases errors in when to call the time of death; it has also, paradoxically, increased ethical problems between families and doctors. Since the limitations of modern treatments are not well known to the public, families sometimes continue to demand intervention for recently deceased patients against physician recommendations or patient wishes. Moreover, the laws and hospital policies provide poor guidance for handling complaints, and thusly cannot adequately resolve disputes due to vast inconsistencies. To ensure the protection of patient and family wishes without overriding the physician's medical decisions, hospitals need to improve the funding, staffing, and organization of their ethics committees. By doing so, these committees can resolve disputes more effectively before they result in costly legal battles.

I think that we as medical professionals will face legal risk if treatment is withheld. A nonbeneficial treatment solicitation is to build up a reasonable and unequivocal procedure to recognize and regard the perspectives of all gatherings included in conflict circumstances including treatment arrangement choice making. Another reason is to respect patient autonomy, and to regard the rights and expert commitments of doctors and different individuals from the medical group. Moreover, acknowledging differing perspectives is both a need and challenge in today's health insurance environment. In addition, this is especially valid toward the end-of-life is in question and feelings have a tendency to be high.