Powell and Lowenstein address many key issues about the refusal of life-saving treatments. They go into depth about what falls into this category of “life-saving treatments,” such as people refusing nutrition and hydration while they have a long life ahead of them with full cognitive ability. They aim to answer questions about whether doctors should allow patients to autonomously make these decisions as well as if the doctors have a duty to follow the patient's wishes. They also discuss the differences in cases with disabilities, chronic diseases, and other health problems along with where to draw the line about patient decisions. Not all of these decisions are the same and deeper understanding of the reasons behind the refusal need to be
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
In the book High Price, highly credible author and neuroscientist, Dr. Carl Hart explains the misconceptions that everyone normally has about drugs and their users. He uses his own life experiences coming from a troubled neighborhood in Florida. The book consists of Hart’s life growing up with domestic violence in his household and the chance he had to come out and excel academically. He talks about the war on drugs and how within this war on drugs we were actually fighting the war with the wrong thing.
An interesting chief of justice is John Roberts. Reason for this being is that he has participated in many important case in which have related to the violation of the first amendment. Chief Justice Roberts has had a successful start to his career and will be known for his very interesting cases and arguments.
Name of serial killer: My serial killer is named Richard Chase. He was also known as the “Vampire of Sacramento” or the “Dracula Killer”.
Terry Blair was born on September 16, 1961, he is a known American serial killer in, Kansas City, Missouri, where he killed and raped more the seven women. He grew up in a family where he’s mother had a ninth grade education and suffered from a mental illness. Blair’s family had many encounters with the police, as he was growing up. While Blair was in prison his brother Walter Blair Jr. offered a man to kill Katherine Allen for $6,000 so she couldn’t appear at his rape trial. Terry admitted to abducting the girl and taking her to an empty lot and shooting her, Walter was imprisoned for the murder and executed in 1993. On March 27, 2008 a judge found Terry guilty for the murders of the six women, the women’s bodies were found in the Prospect Avenue corridor in 2003 and 2004.
George Walton was one of three representatives from Georgia to sign the Declaration of Independence. The exact date of his birth is unknown but it is believed to be in the year 1749 in Prince Edward County Virginia. At a young age his parents died and he was adopted by and uncle who trained him to be a carpenter. In 1769 George moved to Savannah Georgia to pursue a legal career. He soon became one of the most successful lawyers in Georgia. He became increasingly active in the Georgia Revolutionary government and was elected to provincial congress in 1775. In 1776 he first served in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia where he signed the Declaration of Independence.
Ideologies unite groups of people and promote the collection of ideas necessary for operation of a properly varnished society. E.K. Hunt and Jared Diamond are two well known authors who discuss the scrupulous importance of ideologies within society. Their books, Property and Prophets and Guns, Germs, and Steel, discuss the success of certain ideologies throughout history, while also integrating the commendable relevance of economics. In determining the correlation of the two novels, one must assess the social, political, and economic factors associated with their viewpoints. Through interpretation of their understandings we can determine the rationale of medieval ideologies as well as, the breakdown of the Christian Paternalistic Ethic as
Social Attitudes Survey noted that 78% of respondents believe that “the law should require doctors to carry out the instructions of a Living Will” (Park et al, 2007). These decisions become important once patients lose their mental capacity, are unconscious, or unable to communicate” (BMA, 2009). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 defines an “advance decision” as a decision made by a person 18 or over, when he or she has the capacity to do so. The implications of a Living Will, make the case against legalising assisted dying weaker. This is because if a person is legally allowed to set out which treatments they will or will not agree to, and can refuse life sustaining treatments by creating a legal document, then why shouldn’t an individual in extreme pain who is able to make the request at the time be able to ask for assistance in
Twenty years ago on April 18, 1996 Shannon Sanderson was murdered by a gentleman named Gerald Powers. It all started early that night when Shannon went to spend the evening gambling down in Tunica, Mississippi alone because earlier that night she got into an argument with her husband, Robert Sanderson. Shannon won $5,000 playing blackjack then cashed out shortly after and was escorted to her car by a security guard. She arrived at her house around 4:45 am when a man came up and abducted her. Her father in-law and her next door neighbors heard dogs barking and went to see what was happening. Her father in-law heard a man's voice and thought it was her husband, however, the neighbor heard a scream and a thud and saw a man drive away in a car.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
For legally competent adult patients, regarding medical care per se - according to Anglo-American law -- every competent adult has the freedom to seek or not to seek medical care and to refuse to consent to any specific treatment proposed, under the common law right of bodily integrity and intangibility:
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
Some people argue that individuals with Anorexia Nervosa should have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. If the individual understands that he or she is refusing treatment and recognizes the consequences of his or her decision, healthcare professionals should respect the patient’s wishes. A person with a mental health condition, such as anorexia, should not be automatically presumed incompetent when making an important health decision (Campbell & Aulisio, 2012). If an individual is automatically presumed incompetent in making the decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment, it displays discrimination towards individuals with mental disorders. Refusal of treatment from a competent individual should be acknowledged, even if the decision is irrational (...
The author describes “futile treatment” as any treatment that is administered to a patient whose medical condition does not have an encouraging outcome with only 10 % of success. It is giving treatment that sustains the life of a patient when there is not much hope of improving. The author gives the testimony of his grandfather’s terminal illness, and the patient’s wish to end all treatments. These treatments apparently kept him alive but in unbearable pain. The healthcare providers were faced with the ethical dilemma of withdrawing (stopping current treatment) vs. withholding treatment (not starting new treatment), while the author felt that everything should be attempted to save his grandfather’s life. Many times, families focus on doing