Israel Stinson Case Analysis

(Pozzuolo, Lassoff, & Valentine, 2005). The decision to grant the family the right to remove the feeding tube was a favorable decision because it left the final decision to the family’s discretion. The court could have refrained from requesting the family to provide clear and convincing evidence for this case. As the legal guardian of the family member, it should be solely left up to the family the precautions that will need to be taken in regards to the incompetent family member. The parents should have been able to make the decision for their daughter without any higher powers getting involved. Because Cruzan was physically incompetent to consent, the next person who would be empowered to consent would be her parents. Cruzan’s parents as next of kin were her Guardian. (Pozgar, G., 2016), According to the law they were invested with the power and charged with the duty of taking care of their daughter first by protecting her rights to die in dignity (p. 406). Family members should be able to make the necessary decisions for their family members directives without the courts getting involve. I am sure the decision Cruzan’s family had to make was not an easy one. The time spent on court battles made an already tragic situation worse. That time should have been spent with family members saying their final goodbyes.

Samuel Weston is a 75 year old man who after several strokes is now ‘terminally comatose’. He is breathing on his own, however, he is on a feeding tube as well as getting antibiotics through a tube. Doctors say that eventually his heart will stop, but are unsure of when. They also say that Mr. Weston is permanently unconscious with no chance of improvement and he will never function as a human being again. The family is torn on what to do, some want to pull the tubes out, and some think this would be murder. Jonathan Weston, who has power of attorney, has decided to take the case to the hospitals ethics committee where they must decide what to do. These are the decisions I have come up with:

On the other hand, with the baby girl’s case, the mother ultimately chose assisted suicide as she wished to stop nourishment and refused permission for surgery. The issue here violates the Baby Doe Law, which regardless of the parents’ wishes, sets specific guidelines for treatment of disabled newborns. Since the baby is not competent due to her age, the issue of informed consent is hard to deal with. This also deals with the issue of deciding for others because the mother must give informed consent and decide based off the well-being of her baby. This is another case of vulnerable population because the patient is a ten-month-old baby, and disabled as well. This means the child must not be neglected and be properly spoken for because she cannot speak for herself. Both cases have issues that overlap with each other and need to be broken down more to be understood properly.

life-sustaining medical treatment." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer 2000, p. 109. Academic OneFile, Accessed 12 Sept. 2017.

Bellevue hospital in new york city has spoke out about this increasing problem. In charge of intensive care at Bellevue is Dr. Ken Berger. Currently he is treating a 72 year old patient who has problems such as Hepatic Failure, Renal Failure, Cardiac Failure, He has no blood pressure and he is septic. This patient of his has shown no indication of getting better and seems to be increasingly getting worse. This man being treated has no chance of survival. Berger's patient is suffering and cannot function normally. In 1990 the supreme court passed a law aimed at stopping prolonging life treatments. However New york lawmakers Have twisted the decision to make it actually more difficult to stop prolonging life treatments. This law requires consent

In this article titled, “Right to Die: Is it too easy to remove life support?” composed by Kenneth Jost describes two similar cases that started in the early 1990’s. Terri Schiavo and Barbara Howe were the two females involved in these debate stirring cases. In 1990 Terri endured a cardiac arrest which resulted in loosing most of her brain, being unable to move, and in an uncommunicative state called “persistent vegetative state.” For 15 years Schiavo was kept alive despite being almost completely motionless and uncommunicative. Micheal, her husband, went to court requesting the tube which gave her liquids and nutrition be disconnected in 1998. Schiavo’s parents battled against his request, one judge of the state ordered caretakers to disconnect

End-of-life care encompasses the aspects of helping patients and their families through the demise process, pain management, culturally sensitive practices and during ethical decision-making process (Hebert, Moore & Rooney, 2011). However that was not the case in the story of the 20-year-old Hailu, a college a freshman from the University of Nevada who was at the center of end of life controversial with St Mary’s hospital Nevada who in April 2015 was placed on life support following complications (decreased blood volume and lack of oxygen to the brain) from anesthesia after surgical procedure to remove her appendix. Hailu, in May, was declared brain dead by the doctors with no possibility of recovery and proposed on removing the life support

“We heard they sent the boy to live with his grandparents. Ashley never really got over the loss of the baby. I want to know what in the hell does all of this has to do with my mother being murdered?” Her voice echoed in the room as she stood to her feet.

The parent’s decision to continue their child on life support is justified by the principles of autonomy, justice, and natural law theory. Of course someone that has full autonomy can decide what is best for his or her child. The mother of Emilio is a firm believer in treating anyone who still has breath. Her son may have had a life threatening disease, but that shouldn’t determine how his life should end. She wanted him to die naturally without physicians telling her when they were going to cut him off of all life-sustaining treatment. She shouldn’t have to fight for wanting her son to die naturally. Her autonomous decision of keeping her child on life support should be well respected by the hospital. It’s almost as if the hospitals are making

However, his decision to continue life support presents a clear ethical dilemma for the health care provider. Again, further communication is necessary and a patient care conference with family members and a consultation with the hospital ethics committee would be prudent. The goal would be to re-educate the husband on the legal role of a surrogate decision-maker.

Israel was suffering from an illness and was sent to a hospital in Guatemala where he was showing progress, and even “defied the declaration of ‘brain death’”(Bourne). After he was well enough, he went back to the US, where the hospital had stated their intention to further treat him and give more tests. When he arrived, his family was in for a rude awakening when the hospital had changed their mind about doing tests for treatment. Not only had they not done anything to help him, but they disregarded the fact that he had defied the “brain death” declaration in Guatemala. The day after arriving back in the US, the hospital had stopped feeding young Israel, and two days later, the doctors “treating” him told his parents that Israel was dead and declared they would stop all treatment. The family tells LifeSiteNews, “[The doctors] treated us like we were criminals, like we had done something wrong...there was no respect for the family, and there was no respect for this little boy” (Bourne). On August 25, 2016, his parents shared one last warm embrace with their little boy before his plug was pulled, and he was gone. Leading up to his death, his parents fought long and hard, pleading to keep him alive until a neurologist could examine him. The court and hospital allowed no time for them to contact family or file their appeal before removing the child. Israel’s mother

Jackson’s, it can be difficult to make an ethical decision or even know what would be the morally right thing to do. I think that while looking at all of the facts such as all of his current and past medical issues, how he told his family he would rather die than life off a feeding tube, and on top of it all has lost the ability to communicate, I think the family made the right choice for him. From the prospective of the medical team it may be hard to let them make a choice such as this because they are trained to give patients their best possible chance but I think that what it comes down to is what his family believes he would choose for himself. I believe that his children felt that they knew what he would have chosen based on all of the facts of the situation. Yes the feeding tube and fluids would prolong his life expectancy, but it would still only be for a limited amount of time and would most likely be uncomfortable and painful with side effects. His children knew that he did not want to live like that and they knew that he showed joy when he was with them, so for him they found the best option they could choose for him was for him to live the rest of his days surrounded by them and not stuck in a hospital living in a way he would not enjoy to the

In October of 2014, Hussein became brain dead in a car accident because of drunk driving due to the actions of the person in the other vehicle. Hussein was only 23 and was from a rich family who insisted on keeping him alive via life support. After the healing of rest of his body, doctors said to his parents that their son was brain dead but his organs were still vital and could be used to save many people on the transplant list. The parents insisted that their son was still alive and his heart was still beating so it was immoral to euthanize their son and it would be considered murder. On the other hand doctors said that in few years Hussein would face organ failure because of bedding for so long and then his organs would not be useful anymore

Its main dilemmas act on the patient’s autonomy and the religious beliefs of the patient’s family. The hospital is trying to walk the thin line of legal but also the right thing to do, and the organ donor candidates are at the mercy of what the parents and hospital decide. Aside from this the parents should also consider the other patients that can be saved from the death of their son. The experience of losing a son can be traumatizing, but to be able to see that he will not be forgotten but thanked for the rest of the next patient’s life has its own merits and should be heavily looked at especially because the parents are religious and most likely want to help others. The patient has the ability to decide what he does on his own. He, like other patients, have autonomy because they can understand their situation and make decisions based on that. In this case the patient cannot respond and will die soon. He made his wishes clear though that he would like to be an organ donor and hence should be allowed to donate his organs to other people in need of organs. As for the parent’s religious beliefs, the hospital should respect their wishes and accommodate as much as possible, but ultimately decide on what is best for the hospital. The ERF’s in this case directly clash with each other due to the completely opposite positions they represent. The parents want to have their son be put off of life support and laid to rest, while the son had become an organ donor and wanted to give his organs to anyone in need of one. The patient’s autonomy and parent’s religious beliefs come into direct opposition because of this complicating the process for the hospital and leading them to choose between honoring a vegetative patient’s organ donor status and letting his parents decide what to

In spring 2004, a phone call from my mother changed my life. She told me in our native language, Aramaic, “the doctor dropped your godson Allen during the C-section.” The physician had committed malpractice, inflicting severe trauma to Allen’s neck during delivery causing spinal cord injury from vertebral levels C5 to T12. My family barely spoke English, and so I had to become my godson’s primary caregiver. Allen’s injury caused tetraplegia and impaired breathing, requiring him to have a tracheostomy. During the daytime I performed much of his tracheostomy care, which involved frequent suctioning of his secretions.