Professor Starson Case Summary

The man charged with the decapitation murder of Broadwater's Edward 'Ned' Kelly has been committed to stand trial. Jonathon Stenberg appeared by video link at Lismore Local court this morning. Stenberg did not enter a plea or apply for bail. By doing so Stenberg waived his right to have a committal hearing to answer the charge of murder. Magistrate R Denes committed Stenberg to stand trial in the Supreme Court in Sydney on June 7.

Judgment was passed on the 29th May 2003. The plaintiff, the Public Advocate of Victoria was a limited guardian of BWV, a woman aged 68 years old, who suffered from fatal and progressive dementia. The plaintiff was appointed the guardian of BWV to make medical decisions on her behalf, due to BWV’s unconsciousness with no brain activity or bodily functions for 3 years. BWV received fluid and nutrition required to keep her alive by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). BWV’s brain stem functions normally but her cortex is damaged. She has no prospect of improvement, hence making PEG medical treatment pointless (as witnessed by 3 medical practitioners – Dr. Michael Ashby; Professor Malcolm Horne; Dr. Michael Woodward). Consulting medical professionals led to the conclusion that upon treatment cessation, BWV

The hospital and its board members stated that the entire ordeal was taken very seriously and that they were very gratified by the final ruling. They also stated that they are

If the Doctor had been allowed more time to study Perry, he would have likely had a different answer for the court. In the same way, if he was allowed to explain his answer of no, the truth would be revealed. This would have caused Perry not to be sentenced to death because of a law protecting criminals with mental

The lower court focused on the factors of Briseno (1992) which were applied without the presence of a doctor in the moment of the recitation, which was incorrect. Also, the CCA did not applied the standard error of measurement in the IQ test, which under Hall v. Florida needs to be apply if the IQ score is between 69 and 79. If the test score is between the IQ test ranges, the person(s) will be qualify as intellectually disable. In addition, the Court sustain that is necessary to view and get support from other medical guides that are recent to prove the defendant is intellectually disable, instead to convict someone just by looking to a test score and old guides. For the reason that, the court declared that the CCA fail to applied current medical guidance and the decision that the court made was a violation of the Eight

This reading is about a case happened in 1988 and arguments of the case based on different points of view.

Mrs. Helling filed a lawsuit against her ophthalmologist but during the trial the court ruled in favor of the defendants arguing that in ophthalmology it was not a standard of profession to perform routine glaucoma tests in patients under forty years of age. It is important to note here that the standards of the profession did require performing pressure tests if the patient’s complaints and symptoms indicated that the patient may be suffering from glaucoma. The defendants’ argument was that the test was given thirty days after the patients first complained of visual field problems. The jury decided in favor of the defendants and the court ruled accordingly. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision at which point the plaintiff petitioned for a review of the case. On appeal the Supreme Court of Washington reversed the judgment and ruled for the plaintiff stating that the defendants were negligent in not having administered the test at a time when the disease could have been prevented (LexisNexis, Helling v. Carey). The court’s decision was largely based on the argument that the test was simple and inexpensive and should have been administered considering the severity of the injury that resulted from the failure to give it. As suggested by Meltzer in the New England Law Review, two explanations to the decision in Helling are possible. First, that the court intended to abrogate the privilege of the

Starson to make informed decisions, but their decision was mostly based on what they believed was in his best interests. The court established that Mr. Starson had full capacity to make his own medical decisions and approved his request to not go through with the treatment.

The case of Elizabeth Bouvia v. Superior Court is a well-known case in the patient’s right to refuse treatment. Elizabeth Bouvia was born with cerebral palsy, which worsened, as she grew older and subsequently caused her to become a quadriplegic. She additionally developed severe degenerative arthritis that caused her to be in continuous unbearable pain. At the age of twenty-eight her condition had worsened to the point that she was said to be bed ridden and completely dependent on others for her activities of daily living. Although she had many physical challenges she was a

Making sure the patience have a choice is a part of the patients’ bill of rights. These rights include, but are not limited to the patient’s right to respect, choosing a provider, and confidentiality etc. (hcahealthcare.com). The facts of Cobbs v. Grant were Cobbs who was the plantiff was experiencing some pain due to an ulcer that was located in his stomach. Due to this pain he went to the hospital and Dr. Dudley Grant who is the defendant was his doctor. Dr. Dudley informed the plantiff Cobbs that he would need to undergo surgery. Dr. Dudley began to have his conversation with Cobbs about the nature of the surgery, but failed to inform him of the risks that were associated with the surgery. The risks in this case were developing two other kinds of ulcers, which would result in two more surgeries would would cause Cobbs to have to get his spleen removed in one of the complications. Cobbs needed his spleen removed because after eight days of being in the hospital he was finally able to go home, which the next day he was experiencing some pain coming from his

I must be aware, as the patient’s advocate, of the choice of each individual patient regarding his or her medical management or, as in this case, the withholding of treatment.

“A decision made by a person (‘P’) after he has reached 18 and when he has capacity to do so, that if – (a) at a later time and in such circumstances as he may specify, a specified treatment is proposed to be carried out or continued by a person providing health care for him, and (b) at that time he lacks capacity to consent to the carrying out or continuation of the treatment, the specified treatment is not to be carried out or

I truly agreed with the judge in his decision against the Catholic hospital. His decision in ruling the Catholic hospital to be in the wrong simply clarifies and justifies the importance and reasons of a hospital, which is to provide medical services to those in need. Just because it was against the Catholic principles in life, they should have still abided by the Principle of Informed Consent. There

Decisional capacity refers to the patient’s ability to perform a set of cognitive tasks including understanding and processing about diagnosis, prognosis and treatment option; weighing the relative benefits, burdens, risks of therapeutic options; applying a set of values to the analysis; arriving at a decision consistent over time and communicating the decision (Post & Blustein, 2015). Ronald does not meet all the requirements for someone with decisional capacity but this does not mean that he cannot make and specific decisions for himself at a certain time. He has fluctuating decisional capacity but on his best days, he still can dictate his care and the caregiver needs to respect that. Capacity is not global, nor is it constant. The determination of capacity can be problematic because of inconsistencies of time, physical condition at the time it was determined or the individual can manipulate results. Some critics also question pathological mental competence. Ronald, due to his age and clinical condition may demonstrate fluctuating capacity but at a certain degree can still make decisions and has the insight to do so. The caregiver and healthcare professional

This can be read as a key ethical question to many healthcare case studies because of the errors and situations that occur. One of the explanations for this occurrence may be the overwhelming workload, chaotic environment and lack of individual attention prescribed to each patient. These issues can cause a disruption to the ethical principle of Beneficence. The principle of Beneficence calls to action the act of helping others and having compassion for the patients. This principle can be threatened when a doctor or caretaker is overworked and unable to effectively manage the series of patients and work they are assigned to take on. I believe that the admitting doctor did not initially catch the error of not calling for the specific drug need because he was more focused on getting Mr. Londborg stable and on the medication to treat his initial and present condition before worrying about the preventative medication. In addition, the doctor was so focused on helping everyone all at once that he was blind to the small details and loose ends that needed to be taken care