Johnathan Assisted Suicide Case Study

The ethical dilemma, in this case, is that Nancy Cruzan was in a vegetative state in a Missouri hospital and that the parent wanted to withhold hydration and nutrition from their daughter. There was no documentation that Nancy Cozen wanted this kind of action to take place if she was ever in a vegetative state. The hospital would not go forth with withholding the hydration and nutrition because of the lack of documentation. The hospital dilemma was that they believe that the individual in a vegetative state has a constitutional right to choose if they want to be withheld from hydration and nutrition. There had to have already been a living will or well-documented evidence of the patient wishes.

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree that John's suicide is an act not of hope, but of despair. I agree because John didnt know what world to be in he was confused about what way he should go. For he has found himself caught between two worlds and unhappy in both. While he is the "Noble Savage" raised in a primitive society and untouched by the contamination of society, John does not understand either world and is hurt by the rejection of his father. Since there is no place for him to be in peace. When he finds an isolated spot curiosity seekers harass him John loses all contentment. If he has any hope, it must be in the next life as he kills himself in

CASE STUDY 2. Assisted Suicide, Alzheimer’s Disease and Depression. This is a case study on a woman named “Kathleen Rheel” whose diagnosis says that she has “initial signs of Alzheimer’s” (Case study, paragraph 1).

This can be a difficult time not only for the patient but also for the loved ones and family. Sue Ellen, due to the fact that she was in a comatose state isn’t aware that she is possibly living in her final days of her life. During this stage health care professionals try to make the patient as comfortable as possible. The healthcare workers and physicians tried to make Sue Ellen as comfortable as possible. There are several myths about the end of life care that support good health care and good medical ethical practices. During this critical time, ethics, clinical judgement, and the law can run into major conflicts. The patient, families and physician can find themselves considering clinically actions that are ethically appropriate, but could possibly raise legal issues. In this particular case, Sue Ellen family and the healthcare facility are concerned. According to Meisel, Snyder, Quill (2000), “The 7 major legal myths regarding end-of-life-care are: (1) Forgoing life-sustaining treatment for patients without decision-making capacity requires evidence that this was the patients actual wish. Sue Ellen, did not have person that was a designated surrogate. This would play a major factor in my decision as a Health Administrator to have her moved from the AICU to a hospice facility for care. (2) Withholding or withdrawing of artificial fluids and nutrition from terminally ill or permanently unconscious patients is illegal. The only time

The morning of 9-19-16, Jonathan went into the nursing clinic with a cousin and his girlfriend. Jonathan had a deep gash to the back of his head, and he was bleeding. Neither Jonathan nor his cousin would say what happened, although it was obvious they knew something. Jonathan later stated he was jumped on his way to school. He did not know who jumped him, the reason, or what he was hit with; he was really vague. The school called Long Beach Police Department, and when they arrived, they stated the gash was a result of a domestic dispute between Jonathan and his mother. Warniesha told the police that she hit Jonathan with a metal broom. According to Law Enforcement, Warniesha reports that Jonathan was fighting with his middle school age brother.

Although many people are against amendment 106 ,which allows doctors to give life ending drugs to terminally ill patients, this should be legal because it respects patients wishes.

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.

Each person has different approach to end of life based on their cultural, religious, and personal values. Because of these values some people might want forgo medical therapies including nutrition and hydration support as a medical treatment. According to the article, registered dieticians have an active role in making decision the hydration and nutrition requirements. Registered dietitians should work collaboratively with the medical team to make recommendation and withdraw or withhold nutrition and hydration in individual. When individual choose to stop nutrition and hydration support because of ethical reason such as religion and cultural registered dietitians have a professional role to discuss the the ethical decision. Food and drink

Given the situation it is morally permissible to refuse life-extending treatment. If I were the patient it would be more like a cruel and unusual punishment rather than a right to life. You are existing not living. A definition of living by Oxford Dictionary is “the pursuit of a lifestyle type,” and you cannot pursue anything if you are bedbound especially if you are hooked up to machines. The principle of respect for autonomy is the principal that we have an obligation to respect persons and that person’s decisions. Using this principle, we have an obligation to respect the patient wishes, and so it is not up to the doctor or law makers to decide what is the ‘best’ for the patient. The guilt of the patient’s death should also not fall onto anyone either because the patient is killing themself in situation.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) position of feeding at the end of life are patient centered and solemnly based on the patient’s personal decision and values. All clinicians, including dietitians have an ethical obligation to protect life and relieve suffering. Mitchell and Kerridge state that medical treatment’s “ultimate goal of any medical intervention of the patient’s prognosis, comfort, well-being or general state of health”. However when a patient lacks the ability to make decisions about their care due to a decline in cognition, loss of conscience or in a vegetative state this challenges the ethicacy of a clinical dietitian to do the right

Death and life is a complicated issue that is discussed in many fields of philosophy. Ethics is a broad field of philosophy that has taken death into consideration and made it a huge concern and specifically in bio medical ethics. Also, death is a huge issue that has many aspects and subtitles. This specific argument sheds light on patients with cases of brain death or terminal brain failure or any kind of medically confirmed brain death or loss in function of the central nervous system. I think that any patient with such conditions, which will be of Corse under the help of nutrition machines, must not continue what is called his/her life. To rephrase my opinion, an unconscious patient with brain or central nervous