The analysis of this case aims to identify the patients and paramedics human and legal rights as well as explore and identify the ethical conflicts of the the case by applying the framework based on Kerridge et al., (2013). The ethical dilemmas within this particular was the patient’s refusal of treatment, despite the fact that she may die without undergoing treatment. Also, the ethical dilemma of the paramedics, to treat or not to treat and risk facilitated suicide. A suicide in this situation implies a breach of duty. This could include overlooking the risk, and/or not effectively using resources that may have mitigated the risk. The legal components of the case fall into the category of consent, patient coercion, trespass and the unlawful …show more content…
The case does not give a clear description as to the patient’s mental state or capacity. It does highlight that paramedics perceived that she was not under the influence of any substance and only appeared to be mildly anxious. The case does not identify whether the patients initial decision to refuse treatment was voluntary, informed or relevant to her situation.
Beneficence as defined by Bate (2004), is “the quality of doing good, taking positive steps to help others, or the notion that one ought to do or promote action that benefits others” (p.343).
The expectation on paramedics is that they protect patients from danger by any reasonable measures, this is outlined in the Ambulance Service Act, 1991, s38 (Queensland). In addition, the Mental Health Act, 2000, s33, (Queensland) empowers police and paramedics to compel individuals experiencing a mental illness to
…show more content…
The requisites for involuntary orders within the Mental Health Act, 2000, (Queensland) are not valid if the patient either requests or agrees to transport to hospital. Paramedics are required to transport a patient who is experiencing a mental health emergency, however if the patient does not agree, then the specific provisions set out in s33 of the Act regarding EEO are valid. In a time that a patient is experiencing a mental health emergency, it is of utmost importance that paramedics provide their service, reflective of the basic human rights of the patient, as specified in both the Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (1991) and the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Queensland Ambulance Service and the Queensland Police Service Mental Health Collaboration (2007). In this case, the patient agreed to transport and accompanied paramedics to a health care facility, making the enforcement of an EEO
This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose for this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
However, the framework in practice is very complex, and has various inconsistencies, such as the legality of refusing treatment, the sovereignty of a living will and the issue of prosecuting those who assist someone to end their lives. There is evidence that shows doctors using palliative sedation as a means to facilitate death in patients that are in extreme pain and the use of limiting or even stopping treatment at the patient’s request is not uncommon. The difficulties of putting the law into practice make it extremely difficult for courts, legislators and doctors to reach clear decisions on individual cases. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the legal framework need to be addressed, as with these present the argument against legalising the right to die is weakened. Legalising assisted dying would simplify the framework and ensure that set barriers and safeguards could be created in order to protect the patient and his/her
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
Mental Health Act 1983- The meaning for this Act is to let achievement to happen, where it’s required, to ensure t...
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
There exists two possible solutions to the ethical dilemma of a terminally ill patient’s right to die: they are the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the banning of it. This paper will explore whether the legalization of PAS should be the recommended course of action or whether there are sufficient negative issues surrounding it to make the banning of it, the correct ethical choice.
This can be seen in the case study as ethical and legal arise in resuscitation settings, as every situation will have its differences it is essential that the paramedic has knowledge in the areas of health ethics and laws relating to providing health care. The laws can be interpreted differently and direction by state guidelines may be required. Paramedics face ethical decisions that they will be required to interpret themselves and act in a way that they believe is right. Obstacles arise such as families’ wishes for the patients’ outcome, communicating with the key stakeholders is imperative in making informed and good health practice decision. It could be argued that the paramedics in the case study acted in the best interest of the patient as there was no formal directive and they did not have enough information regarding the patients’ wishes in relation to the current situation. More consultation with the key stakeholders may have provided a better approach in reducing the stress and understanding of why the resuscitation was happening. Overall, ethically it could be argued that commencing resuscitation and terminating once appropriate information was available is the right thing to do for the
Critical to understanding the extent of the problem is a clear definition of mentally ill, “a person suffering from mental illness and, owing to that illness, there are reasonable grounds for believing that care, treatment or control of the person is necessary for the person’s own protection from serious harm, or for the protection of others from serious harm” [Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)]. Noting that the statute specifies the ‘control’ of this group which adds to the notion that people with mental health problems are inherently more dangerous members of our society. Furthermore mental health problems within the prison system (inmate population) are estimated to be three to four times higher than in the general Australian popula...
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
My colleague and I received an emergency call to reports of a female on the ground. Once on scene an intoxicated male stated that his wife is under investigation for “passing out episodes”. She was lying supine on the kitchen floor and did not respond to A.V.P.U. I measured and inserted a nasopharyngeal airway which was initially accepted by my patient. She then regained consciousness and stated, “Oh it’s happened again has it?” I removed the airway and asked my colleague to complete base line observations and ECG which were all within the normal range. During history taking my patient stated that she did not wish to travel to hospital. However each time my patient stood up she collapsed and we would have to intervene to protect her safety and dignity, whilst also trying to ascertain what was going on. During the unresponsive episodes we returned the patient to the stretcher where she spontaneously recovered and refused hospital treatment. I completed my patient report form to reflect the patient's decision and highlighted my concerns. The patient’s intoxicated husband then carried his wife back into the house.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.