1. What are the primary ethical issues to consider in this case? (1pt.)
The primary ethical issues to consider in this case are to keep the patient alive or to remove them from life-support. This is a more difficult case, then it sounds as the health care professionals have to choose between what the patient, who may have brain damage says, which is no, I want to be on life support. Or going by the words of two close friends and a doctor that has known the patient for 7 years, who both say the patient isn’t able to consciously make this decision because of her brain damage. And her will says she doesn’t want to be on life-support if she isn’t expected to recover. This leads to the question, what is the ethically right thing to do?
2. Which …show more content…
The duty of the nurse is to abide and advocate for the patient and their current wishes. The patient’s current verbal request is not to be taken off life sustaining treatment. The perspective of Deontology focuses on the individual patient and their desires rather than other stakeholders, for example, the patients’ friend’s and doctor’s wishes. This case is tough to determine what the patient’s actual wishes are, since there is a possibility she could have brain damage. Until, hard evidence is filed about brain damage skewing the patient decision making, the patient’s subjective information should be the primary focus. This is essential because what if the patient changed their mind; there could be a reason they’re telling the health care professionals that they don’t want to be taken off of treatment. The most predominant ethical principle in this case is autonomy; allowing the patient to make their own treatment about their own …show more content…
2) What principle is the most predominate?
3) ONLY the individual person counts.
4) Do not allow emotions to get in the way. Rules:
1) Outcome over duty.
2) What principle is most predominate?
3) For the good of the whole.
4) Do not allow emotions to get in the way.
Conclusion based off of this case:
In regards of the deontological perspective, the patient should continue to be on the ventilator, as the patient clearly stated they did not want to be taken off the ventilator. The autonomy of the INDIVIUAL is the most important duty in this perspective. Conclusion based off of this case:
In regards of the teleological perspective, the patient should be taken off the ventilator, as it is for the good of the whole. The autonomy of the WHOLE, which is the patient’s friends and their primary care provider is the most important outcome in this perspective. The patient’s friends and doctor decision is skewed by the patients will that was written a few years prior to this event.
8. What should a client advocate do in this situation? (2
The primary ethical issues to consider in this case are to keep the patient alive or to remove them from life-support. This is a more difficult case, then it sounds as the health care professionals have to choose between what the patient, who may have brain damage says, which is no, I want to be on life support. Or going by the words of two close friends and a doctor that has known the patient for 7 years, who both say the patient isn’t able to consciously make this decision because of her brain damage. And her will says she doesn’t want to be on life-support if she isn’t expected to recover. This leads to the question, what is the ethically right thing to do?
2. Which …show more content…
The duty of the nurse is to abide and advocate for the patient and their current wishes. The patient’s current verbal request is not to be taken off life sustaining treatment. The perspective of Deontology focuses on the individual patient and their desires rather than other stakeholders, for example, the patients’ friend’s and doctor’s wishes. This case is tough to determine what the patient’s actual wishes are, since there is a possibility she could have brain damage. Until, hard evidence is filed about brain damage skewing the patient decision making, the patient’s subjective information should be the primary focus. This is essential because what if the patient changed their mind; there could be a reason they’re telling the health care professionals that they don’t want to be taken off of treatment. The most predominant ethical principle in this case is autonomy; allowing the patient to make their own treatment about their own …show more content…
2) What principle is the most predominate?
3) ONLY the individual person counts.
4) Do not allow emotions to get in the way. Rules:
1) Outcome over duty.
2) What principle is most predominate?
3) For the good of the whole.
4) Do not allow emotions to get in the way.
Conclusion based off of this case:
In regards of the deontological perspective, the patient should continue to be on the ventilator, as the patient clearly stated they did not want to be taken off the ventilator. The autonomy of the INDIVIUAL is the most important duty in this perspective. Conclusion based off of this case:
In regards of the teleological perspective, the patient should be taken off the ventilator, as it is for the good of the whole. The autonomy of the WHOLE, which is the patient’s friends and their primary care provider is the most important outcome in this perspective. The patient’s friends and doctor decision is skewed by the patients will that was written a few years prior to this event.
8. What should a client advocate do in this situation? (2