Breathing is a fundamental component of life without which the sustainability of all body functions would be rendered obsolete. Therefore in patient care one of the most important assessments all healthcare providers must prioritise is the assessment of the patient’s airway patency and breathing function and in doing so identify and rectify any potentially life threatening abnormalities. Maintaining the mechanics of breathing allows the respiratory functions, vital to the homeostatic balance to remain prosperous and improve the prognosis of the recovering patient. During the course of this essay the use of respiratory support techniques will be critically reviewed in terms of the issues surrounding the administration of invasive and non-invasive respiratory support techniques, the legal and ethical implications of mechanically ventilating patients and the political influences on the withdraw of medical treatment in the case of the mechanically ventilated patient. Respiratory failure in patients can be a result of many different factors such as Diseases or conditions that cause a malfunction in the mechanics of breathing and is defined by Hurst (2009) “as impaired pulmonary gas exchange leading to hypoxaemia with or without hypercapnia”. The clinical management of respiratory failure can be performed using non-invasive techniques such as oxygen therapy; continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation. Invasive techniques of managing respiratory failure involve endotracheal intubation and ventilation of the patient. The presentation of the patient will determine the level of respiratory intervention necessary to maintain the patient’s vital signs. The use of oxygen therapy is widely acknowledged as a st... ... middle of paper ... ... Ms. B, a situation where by a patient decided to refuse life sustaining treatment is to be determined on a case by case basis. Until the government and society decide to debate openly about withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment there will be uncomfortable battles in court regarding the right to end life. As Lord Bingham (2001) stated when commenting on the case of Miss Pretty VS Director of Public Prosecutions (2001) “The wider issues raised by this appeal are the subject of profound and fully justified concern to very many people. The questions whether the terminally ill, or others, should be free to seek assistance in taking their own lives, and if so in what circumstances and subject to what safeguards, are of great social, ethical and religious significance and are questions on which widely differing beliefs and views are held, often strongly”
Ascertaining the adequacy of gaseous exchange is the major purpose of the respiratory assessment. The components of respiratory assessment comprises of rate, rhythm, quality of breathing, degree of effort, cough, skin colour, deformities and mental status (Moore, 2007). RR is a primary indicator among other components that assists health professionals to record the baseline findings of current ventilatory functions and to identify physiological respiratory deterioration. For instance, increased RR (tachypnoea) and tidal volume indicate the body’s attempt to correct hypoxaemia and hypercapnia (Cretikos, Bellomo, Hillman, Chen, Finfer, & Flabouris, 2008). The inclusive use of a respiratory assessment on a patient could lead to numerous potential benefits. Firstly, initial findings of respiratory assessment reveals baseline data of patient’s respiratory functions. Secondly, if the patient is on respiratory medication such as salbutamol and ipratropium bromide, the respiratory assessment enables nurses to measure the effectiveness of medications and patient’s compliance towards those medications (Cretikos, Bellomo, Hillman, Chen, Finfer, & Flabouris, 2008). Thirdly, it facilitates early identification of respiratory complications and it has the potential to reduce the risk of significant clinical
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
Previous research used noninvasive ventilation to help those with COPD improve their altered level of consciousness by allowing the alveoli to be ventilated and move the trapped carbon dioxide out of the lungs. When too much carbon dioxide is in the blood, the gas moves through the blood-brain barrier and causes an acidosis within the body, because not enough carbon dioxide is being blown off through ventilation. The BiPAP machine allows positive pressure to enter the lungs, expand all the way to the alveoli, and create the movement of air and blood. Within the study, two different machines were used; a regular BiPAP ventilator and a bilevel positive airway pressure – spontaneous/timed with average volume assured pressure support, or AVAPS. The latter machine uses a setting for a set tidal volume and adjusts based on inspiratory pressure.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
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
...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.”
In the face of the threat of euthanasia, does the patient have the right to the final word? What are his rights in the area of medical care? This essay will explore this question, and provide case histories to exemplify these rights in action.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Terminally ill patients no longer wish to have their lives artificially prolonged by expensive, painful, or debilitating treatments and would rather die quietly. The patients do not wish to prolong their life and they may not wish to commit suicide themselves or worse, are physically incapable of doing so. People have the right to their own destiny and living in the U.S we have acquired freedom. The patients Right to Self Determination Act gives the patient the power to decide how, when and why they choose to die. In "Editorial Exchange: Death with Dignity: Reopen Assisted-Suicide Debate." The Canadian Press Sep 27 2013 ProQuest. 7 June 2015” Doctor Donald Low and his terminally ill friends plea to physician assisted suicide in an online video. He states that it is their rights as cancer patients to make the decision to pass, but he is denied. Where is the equality? Patients who are on dialysis or hooked up to respirators have the choice to end their lives by ending treatment. However, patients who are not dependent on life support cannot choose when they can pass. Many patients feel that because of their illness that life is not worth living for and that life has already been taken from them due to lack of activities they can perform. Most of the terminally ill patients are bedridden with outrageous amounts of medication and they don’t want family members having to care for them
Medical technology today has achieved remarkable feats in prolonging the lives of human beings. Respirators can support a patient's failin...
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Hess Dean R., M. N. (2012). Respiratory Care: Principles and Practice 12th Edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Hinkle, Janice, and Kerry Cheever. “Management of Patients with Chronic Pulmonary Disease." Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, 13th Ed. Philadelphia: Lisa McAllister, 2013. 619-630. Print.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s