Jenna Case : Heart Breaking

Jenna Suleman (mid-forties) is a financial advisor, who is currently a First Vice President of Investments for Wells Fargo Advisors. She provides comprehensive asset management strategies to corporations, senior executives and their families. Jenna has been recognized by both Forbes.com, which ranked her as #173 on its list of Millennial Advisors, and by Working Mother where she is #145 on its list of Top Financial Advisors. She is also Treasurer of the North Beach chapter of Friends of Public Schools and a member of the President’s Cabinet of Miami Children’s Health Foundation. Jenna holds Series 7, 66, 31, and Life Insurance licenses and is a graduate of Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI.

The importance of supporting the individual and allowing them to make their own decisions is vital. Communicating with them and allowing identifying their own needs and then supporting them in that decision. You could involve family, friends and carers in the process.

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)

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

After declaring Jahi McMath brain dead, the doctors at the Children’s Hospital ordered her to be taken off mechanical ventilation. Her mother, Latasha Winkfield, refused to accept that her daughter was dead and incapable of recovering (du Toit & Miller, 2016). Winkfield believed her daughter was still alive because McMath was breathing and her heart was still beating (du Toit & Miller, 2016). McMath’s family disagreed with the doctors’ report and filed a lawsuit to prevent life support from being discontinued (Paola, 2014).

This Rights model, more specifically Ashley’s human rights is very present in the article. It could be argued that she doesn’t need or require the treatment to medically improve her life. The Equal and Human Rights Commission (2008) suggest that human rights are the freedoms that we are all entitled to as a result of our shared humanity. I understand that she is unable to speak and is unlikely to have the mental capacity to make that decision but does that automatically transfer that decision to her parents? The United Nations Convention on the Rights for a Child (1989) plays an important part of the Rights model for this text as I feel it both supports and opposes the parent’s actions. Article 23 concentrates on children’s disability by stating that ‘Children who have any kind of disability have the right to special care and support, as well as all the rights in the Convention, so that they can live full and independent lives.’ This could support Ashley’s parent’s’ motives. However, Article 3 states ‘The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children.’ In this case are the parents doing what’s best for Ashley or themselves? This is a good example where the Rights model can get itself in a twist!

MILLERSBURG — Arrested Saturday, a Millersburg woman has denied criminal charges she assaulted her boyfriend.

Under the US law, any kid under the age of 18 years old considered to be a child and need his parental consent form regarding any activity that involves the kid including a medical condition that is listed in this case (Byrne, Rapee & Sweller, 2017)So, parents have the right either to give or denies a consent. When parents faced with a medical procedure that they do not agree and believe in because of their religious background, they have a right to be present another treatment plan that doesn’t go against their beliefs (Byrne, Rapee & Sweller, 2017). From the case study above, it doesn’t say anything about an optional treatment plan being presented to the family, which might be a big problem that the doctor might be held accountable for. The other factors need to be seen is the doctor’s professional duty. Doctors have an ethical, professional,and constitutional duty to save life when they are faced with a situation that is called an emergency (Hashimoto, 2011) From the case study the kid was in a critical health situation because he has a meningitis. Meningitis is a medical emergency that is caused by an infection and can be a life-threatening situation ( Baldridge, 2013).Lastly, the kid has the legal right to be safe under his parents or any person who have a legal guardianship, however, if parents are putting kid’s life under a situation that might lead to fatality, it is called a child abuse. In this case, parents can lose the custody of the child and can not even able have any saying about the child

(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.

Suspects: The groundskeeper for the apartment complex the Brannen family had been living in, Caleb Daniel Hughes

To begin with, the client whose name is Mr. Sam Pilsudski has an obstructed airway secondary to cancer of the larynx. He is a 67-year-old widower, and a father of one son and two daughters, who is unconscious and terminally ill, if not for a much-needed operation to remove both his cancer and larynx to save his life. However, one of Mr. Pilsudski’s daughters has adamantly refused to consent to the surgical procedure despite the physician explaining that although the operation would unfortunately render his patient disabled without a voice consequentially, but ultimately surviving the procedure to live and recover. Moreover, the physician attempted with rational and clear communication to express the gravity of the rather poor prognosis of his illness to his daughter that in the event of foregoing the surgery, his patient would surely die (Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington, and Frank M. Loewenberg (2012), Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice. 9th Ed; p. 279).

There are many legal and ethical situations that healthcare providers will be faced with when providing medical treatment to either a child or an elderly adult. While there is often much discussion regarding the elderly and do not resuscitate orders, there are often times when the decisions for health care of a child may be overlooked. Some of the legal issues that may be faced by healthcare professionals are informed consent, confidentiality, reproductive services and child abuse. Patients have the right to decide what is done to their own bodies, but for children under eighteen, their parents decide for them. A major issue faced by healthcare professionals is parental refusal for treatment. Healthcare providers will be faced with many conflicting ethical and legal situations regarding refusal of a minor’s healthcare and treatment. These issues

As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.

Ming’s case is very complicated in terms of ethical and cultural beliefs. It was mentioned that Ming was a smart girl and somehow she would understand the situation. Ming's autonomy should be respected as an adolescent since she can make a decision in relation to her treatment. According ACN 2016 respecting the child’s ability to make decision will be part of respecting their autonomy, thus as an adolescent they should be included in the management plan . However, Ming’s parents have these beliefs that preventing the staffs from releasing sensitive information or facts about the health status of Ming to herself, where they wanted to promote her well-being. This is where beneficence and non-maleficence conflict will exist aside from the autonomy

The best possible resolution for this case would be to, first, to identify what Andrea would want to do for her end of life care. When her condition was deteriorating but before the cardiac arrest, the parents, social workers, nurses, and the physician should assess Andrea’s pain and suffering, asking her to express what she thinks she would want in the end. Harrison et al. (1997) supports this argument, claiming, “Parents and physicians should not exclude children and adolescents from decision making without persuasive reasons.” “Physicians should ensure that good decisions are made on behalf of their child patients” (as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000, p. 163). It was also argued that, children of primary-school age, like Andrea, can participate in medical decisions, indicating their