Health Care Ethical Dilemmas

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

My decision was that he should not receive the treatment because no matter how you look at it you cannot argue with autonomy as long as that person is competent. However, I

According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, the Affordable care Act from President Obama gives consumers more options and benefits when seeking coverage from insurance company. It offers lowering cost as well as gets more access to high quality of care. This law creates Patient’s Bill of Rights that is very effective to protect consumers from any abuses or fraud from insurance company. Some preventive services are available to many Americans especially Medicare recipients at no cost. Not just that, they also receive a special offer of 50 percent discount for any well-known drugs in the market place under Medicare named “donut hole.” The Affordable Care Act helps other organizations and programs to convince healthcare providers

Intravenous drug use is a dangerous, yet increasing activity around the world. Persons who inject themselves with illicit drugs are at risk for several complications such as infection caused by contaminated needles. These infections can be serious and often lead to hospitalization as well as other health-related complications. A situation that often arises is determining the best type of treatment for IV drug users who are being discharged from the hospital. Physicians and pharmacists are commonly faced with choosing outpatient IV antibiotic therapy versus oral antibiotics when treating infections caused by IV drug use. This presents an ethical dilemma, particularly concerning the ethical principles of beneficence and

There are some ethical dilemmas evident in this scenario, starting with an End of life dilemma, refusal of care and informed consent.“End of

Our country is at the beginning of a greatly anticipated and much needed health care reform. Such a transition brings to the forefront numerous important ethical issues. Many of us have been privy to the gloomy statistics about the high cost of our health care system and some of its less than stellar outcomes. The purpose of this paper is not to grumble about the current health care system, but instead to concentrate on the existing reform exertions, the ethical justifications for its creation, and the ethical challenges it brings. Adhering to the essential ethical principles during the policy development process safeguards a sensible approach to finding an adaptive combination of health care system components.

In their day to day undertakings, health professionals encounter a variety of ethical problems. One of these problems has got to do with decision making most particularly at the end of life. An ethical dilemma in this case could emanate from the best course of action to adopt when it comes to the management as well as treatment of patients at the end-of-life. It is important to note that in some instances, treatment may be withheld or withdrawn if it does not enhance the patient's quality of life. This is more so the case if such treatment is regarded unnecessary, disproportionate or ineffective. It is however imperative to note that withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life care does not necessarily constitute an act of euthanasia by omission. Instead, this can be viewed as an instance of good palliative care as in addition to allowing a disease to assume its own natural course, it also enhances both the dignity and comfort of the patient.

Nurses are constantly challenged by changes which occur in their practice environment and are under the influence of internal or external factors. Due to the increased complexity of the health system, nowadays nurses are faced with ethical and legal decisions and often come across dilemmas regarding patient care. From this perspective a good question to be raised would be whether or not nurses have the necessary background, knowledge and skills to make appropriate legal and ethical decisions. Even though most nursing programs cover the ethical and moral issues in health care, it is questionable if new nurses have the depth of knowledge and understanding of these issues and apply them in their practice

I think other professionals such as the doctors and nurses could have discussed more about possible options with both the patient (if he was still capable) and his wife. This way, they would be fully aware of the situation and potentially come to an agreement. The providers could also be there for the family to support them when it comes to making the decision. In the end, if I was the pharmacist in this situation, I would let the patient’s wife know all the possible solutions and their consequences. Personally, I lean toward the last option. Patient who is near the end of life with terminal illness such as cancer can encounter extreme pain. If that is the case, then it would make the sense of guilt lessen for the wife to give him. Otherwise, the increased in dose is unnecessary. Especially when she already expressed that she was not comfortable to form the decision. Proper communication is still the key. On the other hand, others may have different opinions. They may hold profound religious beliefs that there are no reasonable conditions to validate the hastening of death of one’s life, even by that person or anyone else. I would say that after all, the person has the right to their own life, or in this case, his loved

From an ethics standpoint, it is generally wrong to force medical treatment on anyone, particularly when there are cultural and religious factors to be taken into consideration. I am reminded of cases involving Christian Scientists who believe that any “traditional” medical intervention is contrary to their cultural and religious views. Oftentimes, in cases involving a seriously ill child, parental rights are legally overruled and children are “forced”

continue full treatment in accordance with patient’s desires or side with physicians and not intubate patient) we can reasonably argue that, under Utilitarian grounds, the act of not intubating her would be morally acceptable and ought to be the course of action that is followed. Such reasoning lies on the fact that a higher level of utility (happiness) would be achieved. In other words, because Utilitarianism determines acts as ethical or morally suspect based on consequences, the end results are what should be considered in who should decide and where should the line be drawn. That is, the concept of “maximizing the greatest good” is important in solving this case

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.

Other would choose to take the medication and improve their chances of survival. The key ethical dilemma exists in making the decision. The introduction of this drug is a topic that requires close analysis. It has failed to produce satisfactory performance during trials and hence poses some level of risk to the patients. Key issues surround its course. Medical ethics requires that a medical decision satisfies fundamental principles which include, not harming a patient, promoting their wellbeing, a just health care system, and autonomy.

There are many serious issues for families to consider when faced with the prospect of removing life support for a loved one. My objective is to identify the key medical ethical considerations that are faced when considering the removal of life support for a patient. Then, I will draw some conclusions about the choices I would make if faced with the decision of having to remove life support for a member of my family.

As a doctor, to prepare myself to take on this case I would have to process a substantial amount of information and use my best judgment to conceive what the best plan of action regarding this case should be. Reviewing the four key principles in medical ethics: nonmaleficience, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, would prove to be very helpful. After reviewing and consulting with my peers I would most likely conclude that the patient is the one receiving the service and is to be put first above all other factors contributing to the situation.