Tube Feeding Ethical Dilemmas

One cannot refuse death. Physician aid-in-death, however, has been targeted for ages by religious groups or those who strictly believe in only prolonging life as a negative thing. Although such reasons are valid, they do not take into consideration the patient 's direct wish, feelings, or foresight of how they believe their life will be. Death should be a basic right; same as Physician-Assisted Suicide should be available as an option for those who are mentally competent and terminally ill, or believe there will be no improvement in the quality of their life.

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

There is legal and ethical controversy regarding the use of artificial methods of feeding. Ethical implications include arguments of withholding or removing tube feedings can be viewed as euthanasia or can it be beneficial to the patient or a burden. Legal implications include if advance directives are not present is it the patient’s wish to be placed on a feeding tube? To prevent legal liability or penalties many nursing homes religiously initiate tube feedings to patients with dementia who stop eating to prevent weight loss Feeding tubes are placed to provide nutrition to these patients but can lead to a lot of complications like aspiration pneumonia, pressure ulcers. (Sheiman). Nursing homes may also push for the placement of tube feeding because of monetary reimbursement that is greater than the patients who are non-tube fed.

For example; I feel that either of these should always be options for a patient and that doctors should continue to allow their patients to be aware of. Doctors should be required to inform their patients about all of the possible options they have surrounding their death—whether that be choosing to continue treatment until their last days, living the remainder of their life out in hospice care, terminating treatment, or physician assisted death. I feel that this also extends to removing artificial nutrition from a patient. It should be something that doctors are allowed to do per the request of the patient or the person who they have deemed to be in charge of making their healthcare

The Hippocratic Oath states, “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Rockett). For centuries, physicians have helped patients to die but that was to endure the lengthy process that leads to their death. A physician pledges that he or she will follow the right path that guides them to practice proper uses of medicine. Taking the vital oath helps civil societies flourish. Some people may be against assisted suicide because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Many claim it is a painless, merciful escape, however there are consequences far from being pain free.

55). Ensuring duty of care to a patient requires the paramedic to take reasonable care and skill in providing a patient with advice and treatment (Curtis & Ramsden, 2015, p. 55) when there is a foreseeable risk of harm to another (Townsend & Luck, 2013, p. 55). Furthermore, when treating patients, such as the one in question, the four principles of bioethics must be adhered too. Applying the four principals allows paramedics to weigh up the available choices, to decide which action best conforms to each principal. Curtis and Ramsden (2015) recognise the four principles to be, autonomy – respect for peoples decisions and values, beneficence – help people, non-maleficence – don’t harm people, and justice – treat like cases alike (p. 34). In addition, it is required that paramedics follow local codes of conduct regarding gaining valid consent (or valid refusal of treatment) from this patient. There are four elements of valid consent, these include voluntary, informed, relevant and capacity (Clinical Quality & Patient Safety Unit, QAS, 2016). Patients must give consent voluntarily, with no coercion and provided sufficient information (Townsend & Luck, 2013, p. 95) regarding the options for their treatment and the risks involved with refusing

I believe that a person should have the independence and freedom to decide their fate, as long as it doesn’t cause harm on others such as family, friends, and the doctors involved. Because of the rapid and dramatic developments in medicine and technology in today’s society, it has given us the power to to save more lives, yet prolong the death of the patients whose physical and mental capabilities cannot be

The Hippocratic Oath addresses the issue of abortion and physician assisted suicide. The Hippocratic Oath advocates the idea of not performing any procedures or treatments that are harmful and focus on benefitting the patients. With these premises, the Hippocratic Oath continues to extend these claims into the highly debated topics of abortion and physician assisted suicide. Because a physician must avoid harm and do good, a physician must not carry out abortions nor prescribe deadly medicine to patients that asked because in both cases, these actions are harmful to the patient. The Hippocratic Oath clearly shows a preference for beneficence and non-maleficence.

There are times that self-determination has opposition with the values and beliefs of health care providers. The five step ethical decision making model is in place for patients that are unable to make their own health care decisions due to incompetency; paternalism is not the method used anymore. “In relation to health care, paternalism manifests itself in the making of decisions on behalf of patients without their full consent or knowledge. (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). Value systems, which includes a patients and family morals, play a factor in ethical decision making.

As the role of pharmacists in patient care continues to grow, the ethical challenges they face every day also increases. After the discussion with my preceptor about ethical situations that a pharmacist can experience, we decided to explore further about the controversial topic of end of life care, specifically avoidance of killing.

The right for consent and autonomy of the patient conflicted with the decision of the medical team resulting to an ethical dilemma in this case. An informed consent can be accomplished through communication, implicit or explicit, or a signed consent (Taylor, 2013). The individual must be competent, which means capable of understanding, retaining, using and weighing information to communicate decision with others, in order for the consent to be valid (Taylor, 2013). In addition, the consent should be taken without any medical administration, or distress that can compromise the patient’s competency. The result of an individual or team that committed non-consensual act can be charged with battery, or assault (Taylor, 2013). According to the code of ethics, the health care teams have an obligation to honor the patient’s decision to withdraw (Lachman, 2015). The medical team ignored the withdrawal of the patient concerning the surgery and continues to proceed with the operation, which is a breach from the patient’s consent. If the patient’s rejection is discarded, it also violates the patient’s autonomy, which is the capacity to act freely with decision and independently (Purtilo, 2013). According to the code of ethics, “patients have the moral and legal right to determine what will be done with and to their person,”

An example of this is in pre-modern society; dying took place at home with the care of family members. However, in modern society, advances in medications and medical practices reduced the physical pain associated with dying; furthermore, people are more likely to die in hospitals and nursing homes rather than at home with their family members (Carr). As bioethicist Tom Beauchamp argues, increasing diversity alters modern moral standards and offers the principles of bioethics as ethical guidance for medical professionals (McCormick). For example, the revisions and modernizations of the Hippocratic oath reflect this change in moral standards. The original Oath asserts for physicians to never give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it or to make a suggestion of it, categorizing PAS as unethical. On the other hand, the modern version of the Oath states that it is a physician’s duty to save a life, but it is also within his or her power to take a life, making PAS ethically permissible (Tyson). The revised Hippocratic oath demonstrates the changes in moral standards owing to globalization and technological advancement. Under these reformed standards, as echoed by the modern Hippocratic oath, it is ethical for physicians to prescribe lethal drugs if it is to relieve

When graduates become doctors or a nurse, they take the doctor's oath, “I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism….I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery….I will respect the privacy of my patients….Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humility and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God….I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” parts taken from the Hippocratic oath all doctors must take. Doctors should follow this oath; however, if their patient is suffering, they should do anything it takes to help him or her even if it results in death. Doctors need to overcome laws and do what is right, even if it makes them lose their job.

I am so glad you chose this article because I learned so much from it. My knowledge of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) rights and regulations grew tremendously. I honestly did not know much about the topic before this article so it was really interesting to me. Knowing as much as we can about patient’s rights is one of the best things we can do for our clients and ourselves as well. “Beneficence means “to do good” and reflects the healthcare professional’s obligation to act for the benefit of the patient and to place the patient’s best interests above all other considerations.” (Geppert, Andrews, & Druyan, 2010, p. 80) As nurses we want to do everything possible to better the health of our patient, but when we have a patient that needs

Today we are face with death in a different setting then our ancestors, instead of dying at a younger age and dying in our home with our families, people are now dying at a hospital or in a medical setting. We are living longer because of the advances in medicine, this is causing us to develop diseases that our ancestors never had to face. Our ancestors did not live long enough to develop some of the diseases we face today. As Jones (2011) provides, “we don’t just die of different diseases then our ancestors, we also die in different circumstances” (p. 302). The changes in circumstances have caused us to reevaluate what is believed to be ethical when faced with dying. There are many medical options a terminal ill or elderly patient that is dying can choose from, however there is great debate whether some of these options are ethical.