Ethics

A patient self-determination Act is a law, which specifies that the clients ought to be presented with information about their rights. Moreover, the clients must also be able to recognize the inscribed directions as well as guidelines about the care that they desire to get if by any chance they become disabled and are incapable of making appropriate health care verdicts. If the patient has an advance directive, certainly, it also should be written down and included in the medical health record of the patient. Furthermore, there are two basic categories of an advance directive; they include durable powers of the attorney, as well as living wills.

The living will enumerate the medical treatment, which the patient selects to refuse or even to omit if the patient is not capable of making the proper choices since he or she is severely ill. In addition, durable powers of attorney appoint an individual’s, i.e., health care delegate, the person would be chosen by the client in place of him or her to make the best health care verdicts on the patients’ health care matters since the patient would not be able to make decisions because of the severity of the illness. The Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) is a request written by a medical doctor when the patient has pointed out the desire to be allowable to die if the patient undergoes a respiratory or a cardiac arrest (Rothman, D. J. 2017). Besides, both the patient and her/his legal team should provide an informed accord for the DNR status. The accord must be clear for other medications that have not been refused by the patient are continued. However, if the patient does not have a DNR, the doctors do everything possible to revive the patient.

In regards to the case study, I would say no, since the woman made her daughter as her health care delegate, as the power of attorney of the patient living will. In this case, whichever decision made by the daughter, the choice has to be followed by the health care provider. Furthermore, the woman’s desire for DNR is not conducted since the son had different sentiments. Nevertheless, following the advance directives, the request of the ailing woman, having a health care delegate, the decision made by the daughter would be final and has to be performed by the physician without questioning.

Assisted death comprises of both what is normally termed as voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted “suicide.” Euthanasia alludes a difference in the level of both the behavior as well as involvement (Yuill, K, 2013). Whereas, a physician-assisted suicide comprises of taking toxic medication, which will be consumed at a period which the patient will prefer or choose. Through distinction, voluntary active euthanasia constitutes of the medical health provider procuring an active responsibility in carrying out the patient’s appeal and typically comprises of the venous conveyance of a dangerous, lethal substance. Moreover, physician-assisted suicide is known to be far much directly and emotionally for the health care provider in contrast to euthanasia. Since the physician would not actively involve himself or herself to cause the death of the patient directly, the medical practitioner only is accountable to supply all the required resources and the means for the patient’s use.

Furthermore, both studies and research about the non-physician-assisted deaths all address this claim that those people who are not as much directly intricate in the process have little worries on consenting their activities in the whole process. In addition, the enthusiasts of physician-assisted suicide express that, the full procedure carries an extra advantage of consenting the patient to decide the proper time of death and even, it also offers the patient an opportunity for him or her to think through about the implications of the desired choice. Moreover, the time offered to the patient to deliberate may also make him or her to change his or her viewpoint in the last minutes. A majority of individuals would contend that this option similarly exists in the events of voluntary active euthanasia, and can even allow the health care provider to converse on various topics, which motivates as well as encourages the patient and gives with the patient the final time decide (Lo, B, 2012). Besides, the usage of self-consumed oral lethal pills offers definite liberty of timing, and the pills do have the danger of error. Nevertheless, all the medicines given ought to be finished while the patient is fit enough to take it, hold them, and metabolically absorb the pills.

The fear of this risk is extensive among patients and, due to this; several people prefer to act earlier to avoid fear. Euthanasia has a lesser chance for errors and may be essential in events where a patient is severely ill for self-consumption of the drug, or they are not able to swallow and absorb the drug. Moreover, if by chance a patient identifies that the doctor can arbitrate, the deed of assisted death may get perpetually postponed.

References

Lo, B. (2012). Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Rothman, D. J. (2017). Strangers at the bedside: a history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. Routledge.

Yuill, K. (2013). Assisted suicide: the liberal, humanist case against legalization. Springer.