Ethics are very important in a workplace. According to the Ethics pdf file on google classroom, ethics are the application of moral principles, standards of behavior, or set of values regarding proper conduct in the workplace as individuals in a group setting. Good ethics in a workplace depends on how trustworthy, respectful, responsible, fairness, and caring you are. There are many ways to show or perform bad ethics. Examples of bad ethics are illegal practices, stealing, ignoring procedures, falsifying information, and lying. There are many court cases that involve poor ethics. One example of a(n) court case dealing with ethics are Bouvia v. Superior Court: Quality of Life Matters. A couple other examples include Blum v. Blum and _______________.
…show more content…
The court issued an order that allowed the hospital to force feed her by inserting a nasogastric tube. According to medscape.com a nasogastric is a medical process involving the insertion of a plastic tube through the nose, past the throat, and down into the stomach. The first unethical practice that i notices in this case was that the hospital is going against the patient's wishes and follows their own procedure. Journalofethics.ama states that her caregivers believed that the state's interests in preserving life compelled such an action.Ms Bouvia sued the hospital and its staff so that she could have the nasogastric tube removed and to stop all medical measures to which she did not consent. According to Journalofethics.ama the court said that to rule otherwise would be aiding and abetting suicide. The appellate court acknowledged that a competent adult has the right to exercise of control over his or her own body. Physicians may establish the medical diagnoses and prognoses of patients, but the competent patient is entitled to make the ultimate decision about what care will be rendered, with the "patients interests and desires…the key ingredients of the decision-making …show more content…
The court noted that Ms Bouvia was mentally competent, understood the risks involved in refusing nasogastric tube feeding, and, hence, any objections to her refusal of the feeding could not be based on those grounds.The hospital staff argued that the interests of the state should prevail over the rights of the patient to refuse treatment. Traditionally, viable state interests include: preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting innocent third parties, and maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession. The court decided that these interests, although valid, were insufficient to overcome Ms Bouvia's right to refuse medical treatment. The appellate court concluded that the trial court had erred in deciding that, just because Ms Bouvia could live an additional 15 to 20 years with sufficient feeding, the state's interest in preserving her life for that period prevailed over her individual right to autonomy. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's focus on the potential additional years of life available to Ms Bouvia without considering
The court issued an order that allowed the hospital to force feed her by inserting a nasogastric tube. According to medscape.com a nasogastric is a medical process involving the insertion of a plastic tube through the nose, past the throat, and down into the stomach. The first unethical practice that i notices in this case was that the hospital is going against the patient's wishes and follows their own procedure. Journalofethics.ama states that her caregivers believed that the state's interests in preserving life compelled such an action.Ms Bouvia sued the hospital and its staff so that she could have the nasogastric tube removed and to stop all medical measures to which she did not consent. According to Journalofethics.ama the court said that to rule otherwise would be aiding and abetting suicide. The appellate court acknowledged that a competent adult has the right to exercise of control over his or her own body. Physicians may establish the medical diagnoses and prognoses of patients, but the competent patient is entitled to make the ultimate decision about what care will be rendered, with the "patients interests and desires…the key ingredients of the decision-making …show more content…
The court noted that Ms Bouvia was mentally competent, understood the risks involved in refusing nasogastric tube feeding, and, hence, any objections to her refusal of the feeding could not be based on those grounds.The hospital staff argued that the interests of the state should prevail over the rights of the patient to refuse treatment. Traditionally, viable state interests include: preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting innocent third parties, and maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession. The court decided that these interests, although valid, were insufficient to overcome Ms Bouvia's right to refuse medical treatment. The appellate court concluded that the trial court had erred in deciding that, just because Ms Bouvia could live an additional 15 to 20 years with sufficient feeding, the state's interest in preserving her life for that period prevailed over her individual right to autonomy. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's focus on the potential additional years of life available to Ms Bouvia without considering