Schloendorff V. US Court Case Study

The Human Rights Act 1998 upholds the person/patient rights to make decisions on whether to accept or decline treatment ("UKCEN: Ethical Issues - Consent", 2016).

The dignity and freedom of a patient should be respected so that people can make their own choices and develop their own life plans in the context of the society they belong to. . An individual has every right to take their own choices. A health care provider cannot treat a patient without his or her permission. If the patient is unable give the consent, then a lawful surrogate can provide consent. A lawful surrogate requires certain criteria like competence or has decision making capacity and is capable of realizing the consequence of consent. The consent from the patient may be implicit or explicit depending on the seriousness of health issues. Serious health issues like intrusive procedures

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

A 28 year old female with cerebral palsy and debilitating arthritis is in the hospital for treatment. She is immobile and unable to perform basic tasks on her own. Due to her condition, she is having trouble eating and in order to help, the doctor believes that a feeding tube (PEG tube) should be surgically inserted. When told about the treatment, the patient refuses surgery. She is deemed competent and understands her situation. In this situation, I propose that the care team should respect the wishes of the patient and let her die.

According to ERD #58, this facility would be required to provide the patient with food or water through other means if oral intake is not an option. In the Terri Schiavo case, she had experienced severely impaired brain function which resulted in her not being able to intake food and water orally and required a feeding tube in order to receive nourishment. In this case it was not determined that she was experiencing any increase physical discomfort or have an underlying fatal condition where the use of a feeding tube was considered bothersome.

All patients have a right to get all the information they need from their doctors of physicians before they make a decision concerning their treatment. A patient has a right to know the pros and cons of the treatment or procedures they are to undergo from their health care providers before any treatment is administered (Lark and Gatii, 1991). Through the Patient’s Bill of Rights, many hospitals have been encouraged to advocate for the rights of the patients. Advocates are found in many hospitals whereby they help patients if they have any problem with their health care

The healthcare system places emphasis on involving patients in their plan care throughout the disease or healing process. Nurses and other members of the healthcare team are responsible to ensure that the competent patient has the right to refuse any medical treatment. Patients can have an active voice in their treatment throughout their disease process by clearly stating their treatment requests in an advanced directive. Patients who file advanced directives are warranting their current wishes are met in the event that they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves. However, an advanced directive (AD)

Third, the patient has the right to be informed about any illness/diagnosis. Therefore, it is the health care professionals responsibility to educate and inform the patient fully of the diagnosis and treatment choices. The fourth right is that the patient has the right to know the individuals that are treating them. Therefore it is the responsibility of the health care provider to provide their name to the patient. The fifth right the patient has the right to consent or refuse treatment. Therefore, it is the healthcare obligation to respect the choice that the patient makes. If the patient does consent treatment, then a consent form must be signed before treatment can take place. The six right the patient has the right to information pertaining to decision making. The seventh right is the patient has the right to know crises procedures. The eight right to any information about special treatment preventions and restrictions of rights. The ninth right patient has is that they can choose their own case manager, therapist or other service providers. The ten right is that the health care facility will protect the patient's privacy (Woodard, 2017). This means that the health care provider needs to make sure to protect the

From an ethics standpoint, it is generally wrong to force medical treatment on anyone, particularly when there are cultural and religious factors to be taken into consideration. I am reminded of cases involving Christian Scientists who believe that any “traditional” medical intervention is contrary to their cultural and religious views. Oftentimes, in cases involving a seriously ill child, parental rights are legally overruled and children are “forced”

In order to respect the patient’s autonomy, is this something the patient would want or had consent been given? (Holmes, 2010, p. 44). Another question that needs to be asked is whether or not giving the patient nutrition and hydration is in the best interest of the patient (Holmes, 2010, p. 44). The one thing as healthcare providers and nurses want to always make sure no harm is being brought to their patient (Holmes, 2010, p. 44). Does giving a feeding tube ore removing a feeding tube cause harm? Is justice being served to the patient? Is everything being done lawfully and according to each code of conduct? It is vital to make sure patients are being treated properly and just (Holmes, 2010, p. 44). Finally, it is imperative to determine the patient’s interests in the treatment (Homes, 2010, p. 44). If the patient is not competent at the time of the decision, do they have an advanced directive? An advocate can be assigned to represent the patient if need be (Holmes, 2010, p.

Controversial topics exist in nearly every industry, but perhaps none more dramatic and differentiated than those issues in the Healthcare industry. Legal and ethical dilemmas are constantly present within the Healthcare industry, so it is important to understand the governing laws and that there is an understandable diversity of opinions on these sensitive topics, which can lead to differing opinions about the “right” thing to do in a particular situation (Harris, 2008). One such topic is that of a patient’s right to refuse treatment. The right to refuse medical treatment in the United States of America is typically traced back to the judicial opinions of court cases: Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), which held that all individual’s had the right to possession and control of his person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law, and Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914), which went a step further and stated that a surgeon who performs an operation without patient’s consent commits an assault, for which they are liable in damages (Standler, 2012). There are numerous court cases and various opinions on the topic of a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, and this type of constant criticism leads to changes in law, the healthcare industry temperament, physician behavior, and patient treatment. Through legal action there has been a precedence

Sandra is a 55-year old woman who was diagnosed with stage 3 cervical cancer and has been responding to chemotherapy. She is admitted to the hospital after developing pneumonia. Sandra has repeatedly expressed her wishes to her physicians and family that she did not wish to undergo resuscitation or receive artificial ventilation in the event of deterioration. However, her condition worsened and she developed severe respiratory failure leading to increasing mental incapacitation. Her physicians decided that in consideration of patient’s age and the reversibility of her acute medical condition, she had a good prognosis if she was supported by artificial ventilation. With the consent of her family, Sandra was intubated and placed on a ventilator.

The essence of the matter is that I am not permitted to eat the ''jacket potato'' and leave the skin. By right whatever is served on your plate ought to be expended without a left over or then again you don't eat at all and simply watched and drew in with the patients. What happened was debilitating the patient push to eat and that compounded their craving due to the way of their eating disorder. Then again, most patients identify with me as student nurse and a learner however others too were not cheerful about that scene. The staff who was available at the table did well by changing the circumstance by requesting that I go to the nurse's office to help the nurse in charge so she can coordinate the

I will argue that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration is not morally different from withdrawing other types of life-sustaining treatment. I will argue the opinion using the ethical principle of beneficence, researching medical treatments of artificial nutrition and providing example of life-sustaining treatments that are equally in similar to artificial nutrition and hydration. In the vignette of Ms. Conrad, I argue reasons for removing a Nasogastric Intubation (NG) to reduce other medical complications that can occur, and the discomfort the tube could cause to the patient.

The nurse should not be obligated to partake in force-feeding the prisoners if she felt that this is inhumane that compromised her moral value. If the nurse is being forced by her employer or supervisor against her wishes, then a violation of ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence were committed if what she intended to do is acting in the best interests of the prisoners and thinks that is the right thing to do, which is justified. As the nurse administrator, I will support the nurse and delegate her to perform other duties and find someone else who can fulfill the