The Duranian Case: An Ethical Dilemma Case

The ethical principles for nurses to practice with beneficence and no maleficence. This legal battle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her family was an ethical debate between continuing artificial life or remove her feeding tube by the request of her husband. Using the theories of utilitarianism and deontology can be applied or considered in making the most ethically correct resolution. The cases are very complex and raise many moral and ethical issues. The cases have brought awareness to society of “the importance of discussing end-of-life issues with family members and underscores how an advance directive, a living will and/or durable power of attorney for health care, are a healthcare proxy clarifies and provides evidence of the wishes of an individual regarding end-of-life decisions. Terri Schiavo should impress upon laypersons and professionals alike the uncertainty of the context in which issues of continuation and termination are argued ethically. Nobody knows what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted. She left no advance directive and in its absence her husband says one thing and her parents

“One of the obligations for nursing staff and everyone is to take care of the dead body whose perfused organs are being maintained by machines”, a panelist interjected. Many hospitals have policies whereby if one is hired by the hospital and has a personal, moral, or religious objection to certain things, then every effort will be made for someone else to participate – termination of pregnancy serves as an example, he continued. Furthermore, he emphasized that there does not have to be a conscientious objection on the part of the doctors or nurses based on spiritual, philosophical, or religious grounds; it’s solely based on not being required to give treatments that one believes are futile. As another member put it succinctly, “You can recuse yourself from performing such duties”. Moreover, the idea of futility is a vague idea, mentioned a panelist; he stressed that in this particular instance, regarding the woman’s brain-death state, this is totally futile. The whole idea behind a religious exemption is, as he put it: “You are not dead based on spiritual grounds. The family believes that it is not actual death – it is not cardiopulmonary death”. In addition, the doctor emphasized that many health practitioners also hold the same religious ideals and would conclude that the person is not dead.

“An ethical dilemma exists when a choice has to be made in which the consequences may have a potential positive or negative outcome.”("Topic 4: Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas (How do managers evaluate beginning-of-life dilemmas?). ", n.d.) The given scenario presents a patient named Jamilah Shah, who is of Turkish descent, 90 years old and collapsed at the side of her bed in the extended care facility in which she resides. The patient suffers from Chronic Pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. The patient was rushed to the ER were the EKG and lab tests revealed she suffered a heart attack and she was started on anticoagulants. The patient has no advance directives and a communication barrier exists, the ER department contacts the emergency contact, one of the patient 's sons Bashir. The patient 's family arrives at the hospital and her son states that he makes the decisions and the wants a do not resuscitate order for his mother and no medical intervention other than comfort care. The social worker handling Jamilahs case is concerned by her family 's lack of support and that the family 's wishes are at odds with the patient 's request for help and her expressed desire to live. Furthermore if the patient does not receive a cardiac catheterization or is considered for a coronary bypass, she will surely die.

As the Abbott Hospital was previously nonsectarian it may prove to be difficult to retain the support of the medical community, the public, and Abbott’s management in light of Mt. Mercy’s acquisition. Post the acquisition, the Catholic Code of Ethics would go into effect which prohibits abortions or sterilizations in hospitals that are owned and operated under Catholic ownership. As the code would be operational at Abbott Hospital they may face opposition from the medical community at large, the public, and the management of Abbott. The public may refrain from utilizing Abbott upon the acquisition as they would now be abiding by the code which may deter patients, particularly those who do not agree with their viewpoint on legalized abortions

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

However, the doctors and relatives deny her the liberty of choice in this life changing matter, and therefore proceed against her will. After undergoing the

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

Surrogate mothers have been the topic of many controversies, regarding how ethical it is. As many know surrogate mothers are women who bear a child for another woman (Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers, 2196-2204). There has been many sides to this argument, deciding whether it was ethical or unethical. Some people have chosen to support this type of medical practice, while others have shun it away completely arguing against it’s inhumane ways.

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

If Lydia is found to be incompetent to make medical decisions; who should? The husband is her legal guardian so in this case, I think it is clear who has the legal right to act as Lydia’s proxy. According to research, in most states, unless the non incompetent patient previously designated a different decision maker, the spouse may act as the proxy. He/she together with the guidance of the physician may decide to withhold life-sustaining treatment (including in most states artificial nutrition and hydration) for a patient diagnosed to be in a terminal or irreversible condition. In all states, however, a patient’s legally recognized surrogate decision maker may direct that life-sustaining treatment not be provided if the surrogate can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the patient would not want the treatment under present circumstances.

When looking at how far technology has come it is astounding since technology eases the dilemma in the Baby M case. This is because it takes away genetics as the child is only the product of its parents and doesn't genetically look similar to the surrogate, who is just the carrier of the child. It is unfair toward women to deprive,them of their choice to enter. It was their own idea to take this step and do good for another family. If one relates this back to the Baby M case information that would have been a key pointer to exactly determine the ruling was to know wether Mary Beth had a child or not. If she did she would have known the consequences of pregnancy and have nothing to argue in her

There are several issues that arise when it comes to the development in medical ethics whilst also maintaining religious principles and ethical values. The development of medical knowledge has allowed for humans to practice different ways in helping society. But these new discoveries have found to clash with religious principles and ethical values. This can be related to the topic of abortion as it goes against monotheistic religious teachings.

The parent’s decision to continue their child on life support is justified by the principles of autonomy, justice, and natural law theory. Of course someone that has full autonomy can decide what is best for his or her child. The mother of Emilio is a firm believer in treating anyone who still has breath. Her son may have had a life threatening disease, but that shouldn’t determine how his life should end. She wanted him to die naturally without physicians telling her when they were going to cut him off of all life-sustaining treatment. She shouldn’t have to fight for wanting her son to die naturally. Her autonomous decision of keeping her child on life support should be well respected by the hospital. It’s almost as if the hospitals are making

This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brain hemispheres which has left her unconscious and unable to make medical decisions for herself. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for life support. Mrs. Smith did not set up an advanced directive, which is defined by Miracle (2011) “mechanism by which individuals make known how they want medical treatment decisions made when they can no longer make them for themselves” (p.229). Without an advanced directive, medical decisions will fall to Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank. Each of which have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life with continued medical intervention, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank

The issue of emotional power and/or control in this case study goes back to the history of the long fight with abortion. When reading this case, the young woman is basically making a decision for her unborn child as well as herself. The woman is controlling a baby who doesn’t even have a chance to speak upon this situation. I’m trying to wrap my mind around this situation in deciding if this is an abortion case? Yes, the mother has her rights, but in the state she lives in is aborting a child because of your own religious beliefs of not accepting blood transfusions legal? Questions wander my mind about how would the baby’s father feel? If he is a Jovine Witness, yet decides for the blood transfusion and surgery, would that have saved the lived