The Biomedical Ethics

On Question 1 write 2 pages --Question 1: Leslie Owens was a teenager when a tragic accident left her unconscious. After several weeks, she had still not regained consciousness. Her physicians agreed that with the proper medical support, she could be kept alive indefinitely. Leslie had, however, at age 10 expressed to friends that she would not want to be kept alive if she were ever severely injured. Discuss the ethical and legal aspects of the above scenarios using only the chapter uploaded with no outside sources. please mention "ALL" the legal and ethical issues that work in the chapter for this case. it doesn't have to be a well constructed essay. you could just read line by line and discuss the issues pointed there, or categorize to legal and ethical. no introduction nor conclusion are needed. the most important part is to state ALL all that is there.
here's the answer but I need you to refraise change the words refraise everything.
Informed Refusal
It is an ethical mandate for medical practitioners and other health care professionals to strive to prolong life as much as possible where there is not possible treatment. This argues for the medical practitioners presiding over Leslie's case to advocate for keeping her believe under the vegetative state. However, Leslie as a patient has an ethical right to consent to be treated in manner that she so wishes. Unfortunately, she is not able to act in a reasonable capacity in this regard.
Her inability to offer informed consent relates to the exceptions under the informed consent. First, Leslie's physical condition does not allow her to act in such capacity. Second, she is not able to understand the nature of the medical problem facing her and so is not in a position to make any meaningful decision. Besides, she is not able to convey the decision to the medical practitioners at the time even if she had it due to her inability to talk or write. Third, she cannot reason. Fourth, she cannot she is not in a stable system that would e equated to an insane person who cannot make rational judgements. In summary, she was not competent enough to have own wilful act performed upon her. According to the consent details, an incompetent patient is one who qualifies under certain conditions including, inability to express personal choices, unable to understand the prevailing circumstances and make a connection to the consequences of various
Surname ! 2
choices, inability to give rationale for the choice made, incapability to relate the choices to associated benefits and risks, and be in a condition to offer reasonable justification for the personal decisions or choices.
However, it is found that Leslie mentioned her consent direction to her friend at age 10.
She was not at vegetative state then and did not know what it is like to decide on it rationally. Besides, she was under age at the time and so can be argued not to have the capability to make right choices. Under the legal frameworks, a child is not taken as able to make personal decisions. In fact, decisions made by children are easily overruled by those made on their behalf by their parents. Leslie would need the consent of her parents or guardians rather than the one she gave to her friends, on this ground. This is the only way the patient's autonomy can be maintained as required by the informed consent principles. On the other hand, this autonomy would be abused by the neglect by the medical practitioners in her state when they are charged with the responsibility of helping her live longer rather than take her life prematurely. The religious objection to brain death applied to her. The medical practitioners would be morally right to advocate for the prolonging of her life. However, it is also a legal and moral obligation of the medical practitioners to seek first informed consent of the patient before treating or managing her in any way that would remarkably affect her life. Besides, it is unethical and illegal for the medical practitioners to coerce the patient into giving forced consent. Also, deception by luring the patient that the outcome of the intended action would be fit for them when it is not true amounts to illegal malpractice by the medical practitioners.
Going by the moral and legal obligations of the medical practitioners to preserve life, it would be wrong to kill the patient even by her will. According to the physiological conditions of
Surname ! 3
the patient, she is alive and needs to be kept so as long as possible. She would howver depedn on the euthanasia that can be debated to be suicidal. Whether active of passive eusthanasia, it would be havign efecet on her medically. Her systems including the brain are not dead but in a deficient functioning. Besides, it is morally wrong on religious grounds to terminate life of a person on the grounds of their vegetative state. Religious facts argue that life of a human being is only determined by God, the supernatural being in charge of life and death. On this grounds still, it is possible for the situation to improve as no human being has the power to determine life but God.
A mix standard seems to fit her sitiation bether thannay one aspect.
On the contrary, considerable power is given to the medical practitioners in deciding the course of action in dilemma situations like that of Leslie. They are allowed to decided how, where and what to use in achieving their mandate of improving life or prolonging it as long as possible. Again, under the best interest standard, the patient is allowed to have those who have the utmost authority of the concepts and the subject matter, in this case the medical practitioners, to determine the manner in which she should be treated moving forward. In this regard, the final decision should be left to rests with the medical practitioners. However, there would be considerable stress level elicited by the unwanted treatment given to Leslie felt by her relatives and friends.
The principle of substituted judgement would be enforced. Family consent is allowed under the law in such conditions. Again, withholding treatment versus withdrawing treatment applied to the case. Under the withholding treatment principle, the patient is allowed to continue getting treatment form the medical practitioners in order to perpetuate the decision to commence treatment. This argument points out to the direction that Leslie should be sustained at her current
Surname ! 4
state for as long as possible. Indeed, withdrawing treatment is unethical under medical and health practice. Physician assisted suicide should not be applied to the case of Leslie going by the myriad of factors opposing the termination of her life. Since the patient is not able exercise her own right to refuse life saving treatment, actions that would save her life or sustain for as long as possible should be prioritized ahead of the opposite ones. This plays fully in the case of Leslie both on ethical and legal grounds.
*On Question 2- write 2 pages
Question 2:Lucinda Larew, age 12, was brought to the pastures of Heaven Medical Center for Scheduled abdominal surgery. In discussing the surgery with Lucinda, the lead surgeon, Emily Smith, disclosed some of the inherent risks of surgery. Lucinda and her family member who was present asked no questions of Dr. Smith regarding the procedure. Dr. Smith did not disclose that she had recently undergone a stressful family situation. During the surgery, Dr. Smith noticed that Lucinda's gall bladder seemed slightly enlarged. Dr. Smith removed the gall bladder. Several unfortunate events occurred during the surgery. Nonetheless, Lucinda was discharged shortly thereafter. Just prior to her release, Dr. Smith. indicated that Lucinda should return the next day for a follow-up appointment. Lucinda's parents did not bring her back to the clinic, however, and Lucinda suffered permanent disability. Discuss the ethical and legal aspects of the above scenarios using only the chapter uploaded with no outside sources. please mention "ALL" the legal and ethical issues that work in the chapter for this case. it doesn't have to be a well constructed essay. you could just read line by line and discuss the issues pointed there, or categorize to legal and ethical. no introduction nor conclusion are needed.
here's the answer but I need you to refraise change the words refraise everything.
Informed Consent
The concept of autonomy means that informed consent states that every single person has the right to ascertain what shall be done with their body. However, such autonomy is threatened by too much interference or neglect. The procedure that Lucinda Larew was to undergo at Heaven Medical Center was a sensitive one and required all the necessary information to be disclosed to the patient or their family in the case of Lucinda. The parents acted on behalf of Lucinda because she was underage to make such decisions for herself. When significant facts are not disclosed, the consent may be termed as voluntary but not informed. Dr. Smith revealed all the inherent risks that the surgery could lead to but failed to touch on his recent stressful family relationship he had gone through. That would have affected the result of the operation that was to be done on Lucinda. To determine whether informed consent was adequately used, a standard is often used. However, that standard is not uniform and has been determined and varied by various different courts. The community of physician's standard has commonly been used as the basis to determine informed consent by the courts.
According to Wagner, the physician's standard was used to determine that the doctor was not under obligation to disclose about the sort of injury that the patient suffered. In that context, the courts can in one way state that Dr. Smith was not under any obligation to inform the patient
Surname ! 2
of his own family problems. Using the objective patient standards point of view may also be employed to determine informational needs. The patient needed to know that there was an inherent risk of getting paralyzed. Also if it was not an emergency situation, the parents of had to be informed of Lucinda's swollen gall bladder and that it was necessary to remove it. The parents of Lucinda had the right to be informed of the decision and the basis that was used to come to that decision during the surgery. After the surgery, they also needed to be advised of the risk that she was in and what needed to be done. The fact that the patient failed to return the following day as she was required underscores that they were not aware of the risk she was facing. The doctor would have taken steps to seek consent to remove the gall bladder, which he never did.
On that basis, the court may consider that such information relating to the swollen gall bladder was essential, and the patient should have been informed and consent acquired of its removal. That falls under the objective patient consent. However, it appears that the discovery of the swollen organ during the surgery, that may be taken to fall under the emergency care where informed consent was hard to obtain. In such emergency situations, the patient is assumed to have agreed to the procedure. Then again, the doctor cannot use therapeutic privilege to escape culpability. However, the patient can take legal action against the doctor through claiming battery or negligence. If the patient had gone on to fill an informed consent form, that might protect him against the negligence lawsuit. For the negligence suit to proceed the causation of injury must be shown that resulted from the absence of informed consent. Lucinda's paralysis must be demonstrated that it was as a result of lacking informed consent. The patient can claim that the doctor did not disclose the material facts regarding the swollen gall bladder. However, they would have to prove that the removal of the gall bladder is what caused the paralysis.
Surname ! 3
Additionally, they would be required to obtain an opinion of a medical professional on whether it was really a medical emergency that required the removal of the gall bladder. The patient must also provide the proof that if he had obtained informed consent, the patient wouldn't have had the surgery that caused the injury.
Conversely, it is hard to determine whether the patient would have refused the procedure if they had obtained informed consent. In Cobbs V. Grant, the Supreme Court ruled that the informational needs of a patient are critical and more important than the nature of disclosure (Chapter 5: Informed Consent, 2015, p. 126). However, the patient and her parents were informed beforehand of the inherent risks that came with abdominal surgery. Therefore, Dr. Smith would be protected against negligence risks and battery claim. The courts often try to safeguard the physicians from patient's bitterness by applying the objective test. The test seeks to determine what a prudent individual would have done if they were in place of the patient and had obtained all the information on possible perils.
Under the subjective patient standard, Dr. Smith is not culpable since he had disclosed all that the patient needed to know. The patient also did not ask questions meaning that they were okay with the information provided. He provided the information in a similar fashion that other healthcare professional would have.
Surname ! 4
Works Cited
Chapter 5: Informed Consent. (2015) ( pp. 114-131).
*On Question 2 write 2 pages