Persuasive Essay On Ethical Dilemmas

The case went all the way to New Jersey Supreme Court before it was finally resolved. The state of New Jersey argued that the request to remove the ventilator should be denied because of the state preservation of life policy. The plaintiff argue for that this infringed upon the right to privacy individuals have because people have the right to refuse medical help, only if they are mentally competent however. The Supreme Court of New Jersey agreed that because the right to privacy was a penumbra right, a right that is implied by the United States Constitution, if Karen Quinlan was to gain competency, with the assumption that she would then fall back in the persistent vegetative state, she should have the right to decide whether or not to remove the life supporting ventilator. The main reason of concern was the she was in a state that did not allow her to give an answer, and she did not have a living will, a legal document that tells what the person wants to happen to them should they be incapacitated, but that her father was the person deciding if the tube should be

In his essay, The Refutation of Medical Paternalism, Alan Goldman states his argument against a strong doctor-patient role differentiation, in which the doctor may act against a patients’ immediate will in order to carry treatment in the patients’ best interest. Goldman frames his entire argument around the single assumption that a person’s freedom to decide his future is the most important and fundamental right as he claims “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.”[1] He claims that the majority of people would agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest

It is this author’s belief that no entities should stand in the way of an individual’s right to seek counsel, regardless of outcome. The ramifications of not suing a HMO could demonstrate no evidence to support efforts to amend the current law, and without legal documents demonstrating the consequences related to denial of care, the rights of patients, to ensure a safe and effective health care, according to standards of practice, may be compromised.

Goldman’s critique of medical paternalism demonstrates the right for patient autonomy and decision to choose a treatment best suited to their needs and interests. Initially, physicians would not announce any form of cancer to their patients, as it was believed to result in physiological distress. Luckily, medical paternalism continues to be rejected in medical situations; the topics of outcomes research, scientific evidence, and court decisions help correct patient decisions on the best treatment.

Both rulings bring about interesting points involving how healthcare is paid for, purchased, and how it is determining who is eligible for it. Health care alone is a unique market that combines many variables with few realistic purchasing alternatives and affordable options for care treatments. Those treatments are very expensive and traditionally difficult to pay out of pocket for Most people except for their yearly check-ups and immunizations do not plan for the random costs and unintentional illnesses and injury that are exclusive to the healthcare market. The costs associated with ER visits, which tend to be relatively expensive, and the healthcare provided to those whether they are uninsured or insured incurs a significant cost that is

This is giving the individuals the freedom of choice of what kind of care or treatment they would like to

It is important that physicians give all possible options to the patient and others involved as well as possible outcomes. There should be strict laws for physicians to make sure they are not abusing their power. State government should not just choose a side and base laws on their views only. The government should take into account the specific medical circumstances involved in a patient's quality of life and future quality of life. Terri’s case was an obvious example that one should not live in a state of unconscious and artificial life, especially when the condition is irreversible. No one would have enjoyed being in her shoes. The current policies of our government are not always in the patient's best

1999). Dr. Walter E. Williams provided an idea that the government is denying rights, however, he refuses to discuss the idea of saving lives and health costs. A compromise should exist between rights and responsibility, but the current policy shows a more advantage situation.

Surrogates are those people who, by law or custom, are appointed to make decisions in the place of the incompetent or doubtfully competent patient regarding medical treatment (Garrett 43). The idea of the surrogate is that they will defend the patient’s autonomy by advocating treatment decisions based solely on what the patient would want. This means that the surrogate must ignore the interests of all other parties involved, including that of family, friends, and the surrogate themselves, when making treatment decisions for the incompetent patient (Garrett 71). In order to ensure that the surrogate is actually defending the patient’s autonomy, the substituted judgment principle is described as a main responsibility of the surrogate. The substituted judgment principle states that the surrogate should make decisions for the patient based on what the patient would choose as deduced from the patient’s written statements, oral notifications, or the patient’s actions and values (Garrett 70). This usually ensures that, when available, a person who knew the patient well will be their surrogate. However, there are many problems that arise with the substituted judgment principle in

However, the framework has also provoked controversy and questions about its adequacy to resolve critical issues in bioethics and in clinical practice. In response, Beauchamp and Childress here offer an extended defense of their theory and critical examination of points of debate.

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

Nurses are faced with ethical dilemmas every day. There are a lot of different beliefs surrounding ethics and the code of ethics. Ethics and ethical issues have always existed, that is why they have put in place the code of ethics. The American Nursing Association (ANA) Code of Ethics isa guideline to help nurses determine which course of action to pursue. Every minute many ethical decisions are made, some may not comply with guidelines and others the patient’s will never understand. In this case study the nurse is put in an uncomfortable position and has two find a way to comply with the family, the patient, and the doctor’s orders.How can she report to the doctor the information the daughter has told her? How she approached

In today's business and personal world, ethical decisions are made on a daily basis. Most of these decisions are based on company ground rules. The others are based on personal ground rules. All decisions can have a number of ground rules that help us determine whether our decision is ethical or unethical. Each decision whether it is based on company or personal ground rules will have its own set of implications. In the following paragraphs I will discuss the impacts of ethics on decision-making, discuss the elements of an ethically defensible decision, define what the ground rules are; what they could be and what they should be, discuss

An ethical dilemma is an incident that causes us to question how we should react based on our beliefs. A decision needs to be made between right and wrong. I have experienced many ethical dilemmas in my lifetime, so I know that there is no such thing as an ethical dilemma that only affects one person. I also know that some ethical dilemmas are easier to resolve than others are. The easy ones are the ones in which we can make decisions on the spot. For example, if a cashier gives me too much change, I can immediately make a decision to either return the money or keep it. Based on Kant’s, categorical imperative there are two criteria for determining moral right and wrong. First, there is universalizability, which states, “the person’s

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and