Who Is The Plaintiff?

If I had to make the decision on what to do in Terri Schaivo’s case I would do what Michael Schiavo had done, I would fight to have the feeding tube removed. I believe that if a person has no quality of life and is in a PVS state, they have no feelings, they feel no pain, and they are not aware of their surroundings. According to the article Terri Schiavo and End-of-Life Decisions “Terri could not continue both to be alive and be free from invasive medical procedures” (Mathes, 2005) I feel keeping them alive is unfair to them and to their loved ones. I also believe that the surrogate decision maker should follow the “best interest” standard, which is, given the medical facts and prognosis, make decisions that would be in the best interests of the patient. (Hook & Mueller, 2005) There was a lot of evidence and proof from the doctors in regards to the fact that Terri was not going to get better, there were no medical interventions left that could help her. Prolonging treatment for Terri would not have changed her quality of life or made it better. In my opinion, Michael Schiavo acted properly as a surrogate decision maker because first of all, he followed her previously spoken wishes and views and, second of all, he acted in her

At the time of the Court’s ruling, eighteen states and Washington, D.C. had laws that allowed family members to withhold treatment from patients lacking the capacity to make medical decisions. The majority of these statutes required that the patient be terminally ill. As of June 1998, thirteen states require that the proxy have specific authorization and/or specific conditions be met in order to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

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

The defendant is the Australian couple Matthew and Annette Palmer, while the plaintiff is Nader Mohareb. The role of the defendant in the civil case is the person being sued, while the plaintiff’s role is the person taking the defendant to court to attempt to sue them.

Advance Directives by the patient designates no feeding tubes, artificial ventilation, or CPR. Concerns regarding alteration of mental status consequential to his illness provoke the physician to seek consultation from the designated Power of Attorney. Nursing responsibilities compel the nurse to consider if the proposed actions of Dr. G violate the patient’s rights of self determination and confidentiality and prompt the nurse to advocate for the patient’s desires regarding medical treatment. Health care providers have a responsibility to honor the patient’s autonomy and provide quality medical care (Badger, 2009 p122). Providing artificial nutrition and ventilation transgresses the patient’s directives and is unethical. The physician appears to be asserting a paternalistic approach in deciding what is best for this patient. Should the interventions be temporary and provide resolution of the condition, the physician can defend his actions as being healing and beneficial. However, there is a chance that the interventions may be permanent and futile; avoiding passive euthanasia and terminal dehydration, serving only to prolonging the illness. Violating the patient’s directives of care by performing invasive procedures can lead to legal incriminations of assault and battery.

Joeli Rosario is and has been a resident of the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco. Her current address is: 1418, South Van Ness Avenue. The Connie’s Costume Shop is a sole proprietorship organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal office located at 1685 Bryant Street, San Francisco, CA 941103.

Sabastian was ordered to have weekly weight checks. It is believed that Gabriella and Shomari do not feed Sabastian properly. There were also concerns about the white area of Sabastian’s eye. The process had begun to refer Sabastian to a specialist. Sabastian was last seen 2/21/18; a visit was scheduled for the week of 2/26-3/2/18, but he had the flu. Gabriella and Shomari received new parent support, 1 on 1 parent support with basic infant care and being able to parent. Although Gabriella and Shomari received parenting support, they were unable to demonstrate what they’ve learned. Gabriella and Sabastian moved to MS to live with Rhonda (maternal grandmother) on 3/3/18. Shomari remains in North Carolina waiting to be discharged from the Navy. After being discharged Shomari will also move to MS. Rhonda is a social worker; she has guardianship of Gabriella’s oldest son (unknown). Jessica spoke with Gabriella the morning of 3/5/18; Gabriella confirmed that she and Sabastian had made it to MS. Jessica informed Gabriella that she needed to continue to follow up with Sabastian’s weekly weight

1. On or about April 5, 2013, Brad walked into Richard's office and there illegally and feloniously assaulted and battered Richard, thereby causing to Richard great pain and suffering.

(TCO D) A patient's family may be actively involved in end-of-life decisions for patients who are incapacitated or incompetent. Compare and contrast two legal cases that address the rights

Salter was court ordered to Shadescrest Health Care Center because of testimony and evidence presented to the court that Sue Salter is unable to provide for her own protection from abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation. She is an Adult in Need of Protective Services and placement, being incapable of adequately providing for her own self-care, due to mental and/or physical disabilities.

against his will for nearly 15 years for “care, maintenance and treatment” based on the diagnosis

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

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

What happened? The healthcare provider was assigned to care for critical disable twenty two year old male. The parents were separated because the mother of the twenty two year threat to kill the father with a daggers. So the courts removed the mother from the home and the father has cared for the son alone for ten years.