Maria 's Accident Is More Tragic

On June 25, 1990, the family appeals to the United States Supreme Court, but the court denied their request once again. On August 30, 1990, Cruzan’s parent request a second hearing from Judge Charles Teel because they believed that they had enough new evidence to prove that their daughter would rather die, than to want to live this way. Finally on December 14, 1990, Judge Teel declares that the parents have the authority to have the feeding tube removed (Chicago Tribune, 1990). After the feeding tube was removed, Nancy Cruzan passed away peacefully on December 26, 1990.

Dr. Gawande shares a personal story with the reader to make his case. He tells us about his daughter Hunter, who suddenly stopped breathing at 11-days-old. Dr. Gawande’s wife quickly noticed the respiratory stoppage, shook Hunter, and her breathing started anew. The Gawande family immediately took Hunter to the hospital where, in an environment guided by the “orthodoxy of patient autonomy”, a team of physicians presented them with different treatment options and asked them to choose their preferred course of action.

The practically speaking, the case of Nancy Cruzan highlights the fact that an individual cannot rely only on telling his would be decision maker what type of care is desired should that individual become incompetent. Such evidence may not be viewed as sufficient to refuse medical treatment as happened with Nancy Cruzan. It thereby becomes important to record exactly what type of treatment should be accepted or refused if one’s decision making capacity is lost. The most common way to do this is in the form of an advance directive. Such a document would declare not only who the patient wants a surrogate decision maker, but also relates the degree of treatment desired by the patient. The presence of an advance directive makes caring for incompetent patients much easier because confusion over the patient’s wishes is avoided. Had Nancy Cruzan made an advance directive, withdrawing the artificial nutrition

In the case of Jani McMath, her parents, family, the court, as well as the medical staff, are all faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to pull the plug. Who has her best interest in mind? How do we know? We would assume her family because they are the closest ones to her, but the truth is that McMath is incapable of making the decision for herself; therefore, whether her life is preserved or not is left in the hands of others. She could have wanted the plugged pulled; then again, she could have wanted her family to be strong and continue to fight for her life.

When Nancy was in a coma they were assigned as her legal guardians until she got better. They argued that if the hospital needed to get their permission, as legal guardians, to insert the tube to Nancy, their request, as legal guardians, to take the tube out should be respected. They also argued that the huge cost of Nancy's treatment "could be better spent on medical procedures for children facing death." (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990). (n.d.). Retrieved

The thin line between life and death has become an ethical issue many health care providers and the government have long tried to ignore. The understanding that life begins at birth, and ends when the heartbeat and breathing have ceased has long been deemed factual. Medical technologies have changed this with respirators, artificial defibrillators, and transplants (Macionis, 2009). “Thus medical and legal experts in the United States define death as an irreversible state involving no response to stimulation, no movement or breathing, no reflexes, and no indication of brain activity” (Macionis, 2009, p. 436).

Unfortunately, she was in place to protest the procedure, she needed help. Nor could her relatives do anything for her. Her many health problems needed to be looked at but the doctors do more than

Her husband, Michael Schiavo petitioned that the doctors should remove the feeding tube. I agree with him because he said if is wife had a say she would not want to live like that. I think the doctors should have taken her off maybe after the first year of her not getting any better. Even after the autopsy, an examiner said, “This damage was irreversible. No

It is a cold grey afternoon with a dull sky and ragged clouds. The last leaf on the tree was finally blown off by the wind, the leaves crunched beneath your feet as you walk on it. The awful smell of dried leaves filled the air and out in the distance, the leafless tree’s branches wobbled around as the wind pushed and blow them around. The dark clouds look furious but me and my younger brother, Allie are happy as hell. We just got a new baseball ball gifted from my older brother, D.B.

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

The principles of justice, nonmaleficence, and beneficence must be considered in this situation as the patient herself has neither voice nor living will expressing her desires. An ethical theory that applies to this situation is rule utilitarianism. This theory is a hybrid of deontological and utilitarian approaches (Purtilo & Doherty, 2012). Terri’s husband feels that he is legally honoring her wishes by allowing Terri to die as the natural consequence of her unfortunate medical condition. Using the utilitarian theory removing her feeding tube justifies the end goal of death. For her family, they feel a duty to Terri and having her feeding tube removed betrays their sense of duty and right. Conflict resolution, in this case, must consider promoting the person’s good or prevention of further harm to the patient. Ethical theories and principles can guide the best

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

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.

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

Imagine being admitted to the hospital and being denied your right to have food and water. While it is known that adequate fluid and nutrition is needed for survival, many health professionals are currently going through an ethical dilemma of whether or not to provide artificial tube feeding for patients with terminal diseases. This ethical decision that affects health professionals must take into consideration the recent research that opposes ANH for this population. These studies have demonstrated that artificial nutrition provides higher risk of medical complications, increased pain, and false hope of health recovery to these patients. Professionals have to be mentally and physically prepared to explain to families the pros and cons of artificial nutrition so that together they can arrive to the best ethical decision for each patient (Brody, Hermer, Scott, Grumbles, Kutac, & McCammon, 2011). For Family and consumer science professionals such as dietetic students provide support to solve this problem when an ethical educational background is incorporated into their major (Hira,1996).