A patient at the end of life poses a challenge for any paramedic; it is important the paramedic works within their legal constraints whilst acting in the best interest of the patient; this includes following the patients wishes (Harris and Cowland, 2008). (duty of care) The paramedic needs to assess the wife’s capacity; this is conducted in two stages; considering disturbance of mind and any loss of faculties which may make this decision difficult (Lord Chancellor, 2005). It needs to be ensured that the wife fully understands and can recall relevant information with regards to being able to make a decision (Lord Chancellor, 2007) In this scenario the wife’s level of pain and discomfort could effect her ability to make an informed decision free
…show more content…
It does not state in this scenario if the husband has lasting power of attorney and is his wife’s advocate; if he is not and the wife legally has been deemed to have full capacity then her wishes must be respected (TSO, 2005). Though it would also be worth in this case conducting a full assessment on the wife including taking a full and detailed patient history; which may include information from the husband (Nixon, 2013); this would help determine whether the cancer has metastasised to areas of the body which may effect the wife’s mental state and her capacity to consent. Another legal consideration is the wife’s right to refuse the sharing of any information pertinent to her treatment with her husband (Wheeler, 2012); (expand). Communication, both verbal and non verbal, play a vital role for any healthcare professional (Nixon, 2013); two different approaches might be considered in this …show more content…
Strong communication skills will be pertinent to ensure the wife makes an autonomous and considered decision based on all of the information that is available (Clarke et al, 2012). Beauchamp and Childress’s (2001) four principle approach: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice; aims to provide a useful framework in which to follow to help aid in the ethical decision making. Beneficence and non-maleficence work hand in hand and involve balancing the risks and benefits of treatment whilst causing no harm. If the wife were to lack capacity the paramedics would be required to act in the patient’s best interests (Harris and Cowland, 2008) and could take into account beneficence and non maleficence. In this instance, hospitalised treatment will not change the overall outcome for the wife and would go against the principle of non maleficence, potentially prolonging the wife’s suffering. Conversely, not taking the wife into hospital could inflict further pain with no long term benefit. Beneficence could be used here to imply not intervening as the benefits would be minimal. Non maleficence combined with maleficence can be used to help guide the paramedic to try and make the wife as comfortable as possible whilst respecting her right to autonomy. Respecting
It does not state in this scenario if the husband has lasting power of attorney and is his wife’s advocate; if he is not and the wife legally has been deemed to have full capacity then her wishes must be respected (TSO, 2005). Though it would also be worth in this case conducting a full assessment on the wife including taking a full and detailed patient history; which may include information from the husband (Nixon, 2013); this would help determine whether the cancer has metastasised to areas of the body which may effect the wife’s mental state and her capacity to consent. Another legal consideration is the wife’s right to refuse the sharing of any information pertinent to her treatment with her husband (Wheeler, 2012); (expand). Communication, both verbal and non verbal, play a vital role for any healthcare professional (Nixon, 2013); two different approaches might be considered in this …show more content…
Strong communication skills will be pertinent to ensure the wife makes an autonomous and considered decision based on all of the information that is available (Clarke et al, 2012). Beauchamp and Childress’s (2001) four principle approach: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice; aims to provide a useful framework in which to follow to help aid in the ethical decision making. Beneficence and non-maleficence work hand in hand and involve balancing the risks and benefits of treatment whilst causing no harm. If the wife were to lack capacity the paramedics would be required to act in the patient’s best interests (Harris and Cowland, 2008) and could take into account beneficence and non maleficence. In this instance, hospitalised treatment will not change the overall outcome for the wife and would go against the principle of non maleficence, potentially prolonging the wife’s suffering. Conversely, not taking the wife into hospital could inflict further pain with no long term benefit. Beneficence could be used here to imply not intervening as the benefits would be minimal. Non maleficence combined with maleficence can be used to help guide the paramedic to try and make the wife as comfortable as possible whilst respecting her right to autonomy. Respecting