Law And Bioethics Paper

In 1999, Maria Avila was hired as a housekeeper by Saratoga Hostel; she was 42 years old. Her duties included: cleaning twelve rooms a day, doing some laundry, and cleaning the hallways as well. Due to the economic crisis of 2009, Saratoga Hostel hired a new business consultant to find ways to reduce costs and personnel. The housekeeping department let go 3 of their 10 employees. The manager then decided to train all employees to clean 14 rooms per day instead of 12. When the training was over, 3 employees could not handle the pressure of the new routine, Avila was of them. These three employees were given another week of training. After that week, when

The role of ethics and social responsibility aids organizations in developing a strong strategic plan, while addressing the needs of stakeholders. Ethics and social responsibility require social awareness to address the needs of the environment and to increase the knowledge of employees, which will lead to a corporation focused on supplying the customer with what is needed, managers equipped with solid decision-making abilities, and employees who believe that he or she are an asset to the business. It is the executive manager’s responsibility to establish a clear vision for the corporation and place a specific focus on understanding stakeholder’s needs. In an effort to support

The Christopher Law was created due to the brutal incident that took place June 19th, 1988. As a matter of fact, Christopher Stephenson was an eleven-year-old boy who was kidnapped, molested and murdered by Joseph Fredrick; a man who is known as a pedophile and at the time had been just statutory released from prison. [1] Nevertheless, The Stephenson family fought with much determination to get their son's legislation approved by the government. As stated Mr. Stephenson believed that by creating a National registry for convicted sex offenders it would bring a revolution to Canada, and also bring awareness towards the safety of the community. Furthermore, The Christopher Law was passed and initiated by the federal government on April 23rd, 2001.

Privacy Act 1988’s purpose is to standardize how personal information is collected, stored, used, disclosed and how this information is accessed. There’s 13 Australian Privacy Principals that relate to Government and Private sectors handling information. Stipulations for credit reporting, and health and medical research professions accessing and managing information when unable to seek consent.

2) Limits: The Role of Law in Bioethical Decisionmaking, by Roger B. Dworkin (Indiana, 1996) & Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed the Practice of Medicine, by David J. Rothman (Harper-Collins, 1991). [These are available for background material.--on reserve at the Law Library & the Center for Bioethics]

As stated in Joseph A. Carrese’s article “Refusal of Care: Patient’s Well-Being and Physicians’ Ethical Obligations,” introduces the fundamental principles and responsibilities that physicians have in order to preserve the welfare of their patients in any circumstances. On the other hand, Debbie Dempsey, author of “Refusing Treatment: Practical, Legal, and Ethical Issues,” strongly supports the patient’s right to make their own medical choices, whether it be to accept or decline any help. W.D Ross solidifies the dependent yet incompetent patient to not refuse care and treatment because the physician has a duty of fidelity, beneficence and a duty to

Written about the structure and culture of biomedical heath care and a society that is attempting to prolong aging, Medicare funding, funding and development of research, and today’s definition of standard care, Sharon Kaufman brings to light the many dilemmas posed to the American health care system. Her ethnographic story, Ordinary Medicine: Extraordinary Treatments, Longer Lives and Where to Draw the Line reveals the booming biomedical research and clinical trials industry, the power held by Medicare and private insurance, and a rapidly changing standard of care once a medical treatment is considered reimbursable. This leads to systematic changes in the standard of care result in a massive amount of pressure being placed upon doctors, patients and families to make an ethically and medically sound decision in refusing or accepting therapy. Kaufman exposes the driving forces behind the expansion of biomedicine, society’s response to the growing industry on a personal and bureaucratic level.

The dilemma for ethics committees brought up by the story of Patrick is a question of how much is too much. As technologies in the medical field continue to advance, people can live substantially longer lives, but are they lives worth living? Some people, like Patrick, don’t think being paralyzed is a quality of life worth living. Others, like Armando, refuse to be made DNR and cling to life even if it consists of communicating by blinking of the eye. The questions raised in this book are awful decisions that nobody should ever have to make. Whatever the committees and doctors choose to do can keep patients alive and allow them to have a low quality of live, be in constant pain and be a burden to society, or keep a terminally ill patient comfortable until he or she has said their good-byes and let nature take its course.

In recent years, there have been many debates on whether or not it should be legal for physicians to aid in the death of incurable patients in the United States. The first big case leading to the “Right to Die” movement was in 1975, when a twenty-one year old girl named Karen Ann Quinlan was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state after ingesting Valium and alcohol while on a crash diet. Her parents requested that she be taken off of life support. The doctors refused, the parents took it to court, and she was ultimately taken off of her ventilator, though she did live for another nine years breathing on her own but with a feeding tube before passing away in 1985 (Nevdjon, Mayer 149). There were then more court cases, and Oregon passed

What is the duty of a healthcare provider when treating patients who do not comply with treatment plans and medication regimens? Noncompliance is most often an issue with diagnoses that are multifactorial, requiring life style changes and numerous medications (Blackburn, Swidrovich, Lemstra, 2013, p. 183 ). One of the most common patient populations to fall within this noncompliant classification is type 2 diabeticspatient with Type 2 diabetes, resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality (Blackburn, Swidrovich, & Lemstra, 2013). As a medical doctor taking care ofProviding care for noncompliant patients can be a real ethical challengepresent ethical challenges as healthcare providers, especially primary care clinicians, struggle to decide whether or not to continue to treat a patient who seeks but does not follow medical advice. Using Beauchamp and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2009) to analyze the case analysis of the a noncompliant patient, Ms. C, will allows an in in-depth look into the many facets of resolving the moral dilemma to treat or not to treat the patient (Appendix A ).

Neoliberalism best explains the living law because the regulations governments have in place today benefits corporations over individuals (Portelli & Konecny, ____). Living laws are the rules society or organizations follow without having official legal documentation (CITE TEXTBOOK). According to neoliberalism theory, corporations and government have developed a working relationship in today’s society. Governments act on behalf of corporations, due to the monetary gains corporations produce for the Canadian economy. Glasbeek expands on the government association with corporations, “Increasingly, governments, having become dependent on these large-scale enterprises for the provision of society's economic

In summary, the McMath case encompasses nearly every problem discussed earlier from a misunderstanding of the limits of medicine and why doctors discontinue interventions, to poor family decision-making and religious objections. This case is not the first, nor the most recent to present an ethical challenge for physicians, however, it did bring to light several problems with death laws in the United States. Not only is it difficult to determine and balance the legal rights of the physician, family, patient, and hospital in a dispute, but those rights change from state to state due to inconsistent state laws.

When it comes to the medical field I knew that primary care providers and others in the medical field must always choose positive care for their patients, but I never thought of other consequences that may arise from these actions. The principle of utility states, "we should produce the most favorable balance of good over bad (or benefit over harm) for all concerned. The example of immunization of all children on page 11 in Bioethics: Principles, Issues and Cases is an example that with the good will come back. People in the medical field must make these decisions that in the end could harm a few but save more people.

The interested parties include Chuck Held, an emergency room nurse who has been paged to report to the ER. His family, consisting of his partner, dogs and son would be affected if he were to become quarantined at the hospital. Furthermore, the healthcare professionals at the hospital and the ER patients are both interested parties, both affected by the outbreak. All healthcare professionals have the ethical dilemma of whether or not to treat patients during an outbreak and the ethics committee has a duty to oversee compliance among healthcare staff and to resolve any disputes.

The bioethics case study that was assigned to me is about a tricky court case between two individuals, Junior and Mary who just got divorced. Before Junior and Mary got divorced they had infertility problems which led them to undergo the process of in vitro fertilization, the process resulted in nine embryos, two were implanted, but failed in developing. Now, Junior and Mary are both competing for the ownership of the embryos left frozen. Both parties have lawyers, Junior wanted the embryos just to destroy them and Mary wanted to implant the embryos. The in vitro fertilization is considered as one of reasons that led to their divorce. Junior’s lawyer claimed that