Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Ethical & Legal Case Study Evaluation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words
Ethical & Legal Evaluation - Case Study ExampleThere are excessively chances of well-bred liability ensuing (Guido, G. 2009). Though The Human Rights Act 1998 identifies a right to life in Article 2. A court ruling, NHS Trust A v M NHS Trust B v H 2001, affirmed that the patients right to willingly refuse treatment, and whether it was in the patients best(p) interests to forgo treatment were the two key factors determine whether treatment will be foregone. The patients right to intention altogethery refuse treatment, was recognized as being both legal and not the same as suicide, this was despite the fact that the refusal would ultimately lead to the patients death (Chiarella 2006). Legality of Janets Actions Janets actions can be termed as being illegal because, according to NHS guidelines on the discontinuation of (LSMT), in occasion a disagreement amongst the team members, the team should sit down and consider the basis of the disagreement and try to obtain an opinion from a me dical professional who happens to be working in a discipline that is the same as the disagreeing member. This was clearly not followed in the case of Dr. Johnsons disagreement with the other attending nurses (Guido, G. 2009). Janet the nurse did not consult with all the staff included in the patients care when she made the decision to discontinue the supply of Mrs. Jordans noradrenaline. This was in direct contravention of a checklist used in the ruling by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Case Re B (an adult refusal of medical treatment) 2002 2 All ER 449. angiotensin-converting enzyme of the requirements in the checklist was that there must be adequate consultation between all the staff involved before a decision is made (McIlwraith & craze 2006). Ethical Features Mrs. Jordan was undergoing palliative chemotherapy, for pancreatic adenocarcinoma that was in its advanced stage and there were not chances that she would recover. Her quality of life was severely hampered and her family u nderstood this and indispensabilityed the animateness Sustaining Medical Treatment to be discontinued. Their intentions are seen to be inline with the doctrine of double effect (Chirella 2006) Ethicality of Janets Actions Janets actions can be viewed as being good as supported by a court ruling, Re Conroy 1985 that upheld that a patient declining life-sustaining treatment could not be viewed as an attempt to open suicide. The action merely allows a disease to follow its natural course. If the patient dies, it could not be termed as a self-inflicted injury but it would be considered to be the result of the underlying disease. She was not responsible for the death (Charella 2006). Legally significant Events in the Alternate Version of the Case Scenario In the second Scenario, there was comfortable consultation between the medical staff attending to Mrs. Jordan and her family before Janet was instructed to withdraw the LSMT. Hence this is perfectly legal in accordance with the Min istry of Health Guidelines (Ministry of Health). The medical professionals and members of the family were also in agreement as opposed to the first scenario where their views were divergent. Dr. Jackson also complied with Mrs. Jordans Advanced Care Directive which clearly stated that she did not want to receive LSMT. This is in compliance with the law as opposed to the
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.