Summary: The Conscientious Objection

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) introduced a statutory framework for advance decision making in England and Wales building upon the common law recognition of advance decisions. Academics considered that a bias may operate against upholding advance decisions refusing life-sustaining treatment 1. It’s commonly felt that judges usually give decisions favouring preservation of life and making advance decisions invalid on various grounds. Recent case-law indicates that a high level of specificity is required for advance refusals of life-sustaining treatment and, in some capacity must be demonstrated at the time of making the decision. This essay will argue the legal back ground of the advance decisions and relevant case law. There are suggestions that advance care planning (ACP) instead of advance decisions (ADRT) may be more helpful when it comes to the practice of law on ground 2.

The law effectively covers situations in which a patient can personally consider the effects of terminated treatments, but does not provide for situations in which the patient is incompetent to inform agents of their desires. Conflict occurs when the court requires evidence for consent to end lifesaving medical treatment, which could be otherwise avoided should the Act be amended to accommodate the needs of the patient (for example, conversations held in passing being held as evidence). The Act should be amended to allow families to make the judgment rather than the patient themselves (such as in Re BWV, Ex Parte Gardner (2003) 7 VR 487, 491[19]). Although it is possible to make decisions on a patient’s behalf, clarification by the Victorian state is needed. The legislation fails to make distinctions between the patient’s desires and what is in their best

Do I have the right to refuse treatment (NHS, 2011) states that, if you hold enough mental capacity and are able to make an informed, sound decision to refuse treatment, your decision should be respected, even if the decision resulted in death.

The proper tort for complete failure of consent is called battery. Battery is intentional unpermitted touching. It boils down to is the healthcare professional needs to discuss with patient and get consent.

2. generally right to decide treatment: Patients generally have the right to decide their treatment however; others measures of treatment should be discussed with the patients. Patients should be competent when deciding to refuse treatment and understand what their options are, however; this should not include physician assisted suicide. Patients do not have to suffer or be in pain, there are many medical options to help the patient through palliative care that will keep them comfortable.

Patient informed consent refers to the situation where the patient is fully informed on the consequences of their health care decision after which the patient gives the decision. For there to be informed consent, there are five elements that must be discussed. The first is the nature of the patient's decision then the applicable alternatives to the proposed intervention. Third are the risks, benefits and uncertainties associated with each of the alternatives. Fourth is the assessment of the patient's understanding and last is the acceptance of the intervention or an alternative by the patient. Before the patient's consent is considered to be valid, the patient's competency to make the decision must be addressed. The criteria for evaluating the patient's competency is clearly stated in section 3 of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act which states that provided the person is able to understand, retain and use information provided and to communicate their decision in any way such as talking or sign language, they are competent to make a decision. If a patient is treated against their refusal to consent, it amounts to the tort of battery or can also be considered the crime of assault. In addition to this, laws that touch on human rights reinforce the importance of the protection of the physical integrity of the individual in terms of their right to respect of their private life. Therefore, refusal of medical treatment is a human right.

The book “Unbroken” was a seemingly impossible tale of triumph and survival of an Olympic runner and WWII veteran named Louis Zamperini. He constantly had to overcome adversity in his early years, for he was an immigrant from Italy and a trouble maker before his brother Pete steered him into running track. This immediately turned him around as he did well enough to in running to break all sorts if local records, which were accomplished while his competitors were trying to sabotage his runs. This qualified him for the 1936 Olympic in Berlin, where he met Hitler. He still had running aspirations but felt he had no choice other than fighting in the world due to the fact that the 1940 Olympics were

Constitutional guarantees infringed upon by the internment of Japanese-American citizens that this essay will cover include The First Amendment right to freedom of religion, speech, of the press, to petition the government, and to assemble peacefully. The Fourth Amendment right to protection from unlawful searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying against yourself in a court of law or being deprived the right to life, liberty, and property. As well as the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, and Fourteenth Amendment right of all American citizens to equal protection under the law, of the United States Bill of Rights. Along with the following sections of the United States Constitution: Article Ⅰ Section 9 Clause 2, which guarantees the writ of habeas corpus to all United States citizens. Article Ⅰ Section 9 Clause 3, which secures that no bills of attainder or ex-post facto laws (legislative acts that inflict punishments without trial) shall be passed. Last, Article Ⅲ Section 2 Clause 3, which ensures the right to a trial by jury. This essay will also cover precisely how the United States government encroached upon Japanese-American citizen’s constitutional rights.

Should terminally ill people be allowed to decide rather or not they want to live in constant pain and suffering? “Physician-assisted death is defined as the physician providing the means for death, most often with a prescription. The patient not the physician will ultimately administer the lethal medication” (Braddock & Tonelli, 1998) To better explain physician-assisted suicide, a situation in which a patient kills him-or herself, using means which have been supplied by the physician, with the physician being aware that the patient will use those means for the purposes of suicide. Physicians are trained to heal the sick, care for the injured, and cure diseases. However, medical school does not prepare them when they cannot cure

Forcing terminally ill patients to suffer straight up to their last days is unacceptable and provisions can be made in order to allow competent patients to have a choice at the end of their lives.

Physicians should respect the patients decision to abandon life continuing treatment, deliberately causing death is morally impermissible.

This provision brings to mind the way that I have to treat many of my terminally ill patients and their families. many of my patients die from lung cancer with smoking as a major contributor to the development of the disease. Some of my patients continue to choose to smoke all the way until they are physically incapable of doing so. As their nurse I know that this practice aggravates and causes exacerbation of their already compromised pulmonary functions. The very symptoms I am trying to relieve for their comfort they are further aggravating. But my ethics in regards to this provision make me aware of the uniqueness of each of my patient’s situations and personalities. My judgement of the nature of their health problem as arising from their smoking habit is not something I can allow to affect how I practice. Their values are not necessarily my own. I inform them that the smoking will continue to aggravate their pulmonary problems but listen carefully as they explain the reasons they may want to continue to smoke. I then try to do my best to continue to relieve their symptoms regardless of their individual choice. I also try not

Children have been losing their childhoods and their innocence since the dawn of modern society and media. Before the dawn of the modern world, children actually had the time to play, daydream, use their imagination, and just be a kid. However, modern society has put this pressure on children to grow up faster and faster that their childhood all bu

In their day to day undertakings, health professionals encounter a variety of ethical problems. One of these problems has got to do with decision making most particularly at the end of life. An ethical dilemma in this case could emanate from the best course of action to adopt when it comes to the management as well as treatment of patients at the end-of-life. It is important to note that in some instances, treatment may be withheld or withdrawn if it does not enhance the patient's quality of life. This is more so the case if such treatment is regarded unnecessary, disproportionate or ineffective. It is however imperative to note that withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life care does not necessarily constitute an act of euthanasia by omission. Instead, this can be viewed as an instance of good palliative care as in addition to allowing a disease to assume its own natural course, it also enhances both the dignity and comfort of the patient.

Defending one’s country is something brave and patriotic, but forcing the citizens to actually take arms isn’t something we really should be doing. People whoever they may be are free to choose to do something, anything they want denying them of this right is a violation to basic human rights. We could not bend the willpower of those who do not wish to partake in such an activity. Also consider all the people who are untrained and unskilled for such a task how are we suppose to train all those people at the same time. I disagree, we should never authorize such an insane policy because it’s a violation to a basic human right, we would waste a great deal of money and time, and we could potentially be killing off the weak, defenseless, and