Health Care Case Summary

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010).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.

When a patient is unable to make decisions for himself or herself, their caregivers and those who know them are appointed to make the decisions based on what the patient would have wanted. This is called surrogate decision making. According to the article Terri Schiavo and End-of-Life Decisions “when surrogate decision makers and caregivers cannot agree upon what that choice would have been, they may turn to the courts to determine either what the now-incapacitated patient would have chosen or who is best suited to choose as the patient would have” (Mathes, 2005)

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

This case raises conflict between two principles one for respecting autonomy and beneficence. Due to Mildred being in a semicomatosed and paralyzed state, she does not have the ability to think autonomously. So, the following authority to help with decisions to be made during this time would be her three children. Her three children want to stop the tube feeding, but the physician objects that it’s unethical to “starve” a patient so that she will die sooner. The physician is not acting autonomously due to the fact of not listening to the patients children who know their mother and what she would want, but he is also not acting with beneficence because he's not helping to promote the well- being of Mildred who is now in this state not able to make her own decisions in addition to having a feeding tube which is the only thing keeping her alive.

(TCO D) A patient's family may be actively involved in end-of-life decisions for patients who are incapacitated or incompetent. Compare and contrast two legal cases that address the rights of families in participating in end-of-life decisions. For each legal case, identify how the case either contributed or detracted from the rights of families. (Points : 30)

We've had some major news stories about MA Plans overcharging lately. What exactly are they about?

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).

Medicaid is a federal grant given to states, disbursed to counties to provider insurance coverage for select populations. These populations include low-income families with minor children, pregnant women, coverage for nursing homes and as a secondary coverage to Medicare. Santa Clara County has a very high population of patients who receive Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid. Individuals would either go to the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency or to a Financial Counselor’s office at SCVHHS to apply for coverage, which requires producing the required documentation.

The Board office received a letter from Mary Fahey, MPHP via fax on 05/04/2015, advising that Dr. John Medley, M.D. a current “ILOD” status had informed her that he had relapsed over the weekend of April 25-26, 2015.

Medicaid failed to achieve its goal of protecting the rights of eligible patients and providing them with quality health care. All three levels of government play a role in how this situation came to be.

Since the patient has verbally communicated with her husband to make the decisions she should ever find herself in this situation. In this case, the New York’s Family Health Care Decisions making Act (FHCDA) and the New York Health Care Proxy Law will be used. The FHCDA, which is newly established, allows the family to make decisions for an incapacitated patient, regardless if the patient has either a signed advanced directive and the surrogate decision maker has direct knowledge of the patient's wishes or will act in the best interest of the patient (State of New York, Revised 2012). As an appointed guardian for Lydia, Mr. Bevin’s is allow make decisions for his

I think it is the decision of how and went to die should be based on the patient’s morals and ethics. It is their life and their body, so no one should have the right to take that away from them. However, if the person does not have an advance directive, it is the responsibility of the family, friends, and doctors to do exactly what the person would want for themselves. A husband should not be allowed

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.

In my opinion, I believe that the family members should all agree with what is right for the dying person but sometimes that doesn’t play out right. So if the person is married, their partner should make the decision, but if the person isn’t married the parents should. So in the case of Terri’s, both of the sides were on different pages of ending Terri life. The medical doctors should have asked what the husband thought was the right thing to do and the decision was to end Terri life. It mentions in the case that patients that are in a PVS are not likely to recover. So why have someone’s body alive, but the person is no longer with us, we are the only ones that are suffering. I don’t believe the legislature should vouch for someone’s life the reason is because they didn’t know the person as well like close family members.

In addition, the legality of living wills is still being challenged in about 25 percent of all cases, decisions are made -– by family or physician – that are contrary to the patient’s wishes as stated in their living will (i.e.