1. Explain how the Patient Bill of Rights applies to this situation. The Patient’s Bill of Rights applies to the situation because a individual has the right to make sound decisions own their own if competent. A patients bill of rights statement is a statement of the rights to which patients are entitled as recipients of medical care. Typically, a statement articulates the positive rights which doctors and hospitals ought to provide patients, thereby providing information, offering fair treatment, and granting them autonomy over medical decisions. there are six values that are commonly applied to medical ethics (Showalter, 2008).
2. Based on the facts given in the scenario, would the patient be considered competent to decide? Explain your answer. No, according to the principle of autonomy recognizes the rights of individuals to self determination. This is determined by society’s respect for individuals ability to make informed decisions about personal matters. Autonomy has become more important as social values have shifted to define medical quality in terms of outcomes that are important to the patient rather than medical professionals ( Brody, 1988). The rise in autonomy can be seen as a social reaction to a “paternalistic” tradition within healthcare.
Never-the-less there are conflicts between autonomy and beneficence when patients disagree with the recommendations that health care professionals believe are in the patients best interest. In the case of a patients interest conflicting with the patients welfare, many different societies would handle in a variety of ways ( Brody, 1988). For example, western medicine generally defers to the wishes of a mentally competent patient to make his own decisions, even in most cases where the medical team believes that he or she is not acting in his own best interests. However, many other societies prioritize beneficence over autonomy. An example would be when a patient such as June in this case denying treatment ( Brody, 1988).
3. Explain the primary responsibility of June’s doctor. In this case the primary responsibility of Junes doctor would be to explain the risk or likely outcome of her refusing to take the feeding tubes. This would be considered informed refusal. The doctor or facility may ask you to sign a form that states you received this information, and you still chose not to be treated. If the patient do not wish to sign the doctor may ask witnesses to sign that you were informed. The physician will not be criminally liable for honoring a competent adults wish to forgo treatment or withdraw from ongoing treatment, even if the decision leads to death (Showalter, 2008).
4. Explain the primary responsibility of the hospital administrators. The primary responsibility of the hospital administrators is to receive an effective consent which is implied and expressed. Implied consent is manifested by acts that show that the patient has agreed to the treatment. However, express consent is known by words oral or written (Showalter, 2008). In addition to the consent form obtained at the time of administration, the hospital should obtain a separate, special consent corm whenever any surgery’s undertaken or special diagnostic procedures are indicated. These should be used whenever the in-hospital procedure or treatment is more than routine hospital care. These proper procedures are recommended as a matter of legal formality (Showalter, 2008).
5. Explain the hospitals ethical obligations in this situation. Medical ethics is primary a field of applied ethics, the study of moral values and judgments as they apply medicine. The concept of non-maleficence is embodied by the phase “do no harm”. Many physicians consider that should be the main focus not to harm the individual, that do them good (Veatch, 1988).
Their are six values that are commonly applied to medical ethics such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, dignity and truthfulness. Values such as these do not give answers as to how to handle a certain situation but gives a blueprint to understanding the conflicts. However, when moral values are in conflict , the result may be an ethical crisis. Sometimes poor decisions for an ethical dilemma in medical exists exist and the values of the individual patient, family, or larger non-medical community. Conflicts can also rise between healthcare providers and among family members for example when patients refuse life saving treatments (Veatch, 1988).
6. Explain the hospitals legal obligations in this situation. The legal situation is quite different when it comes to a competent patient refusing to consent medical or surgical treatment. The competent patients express to consent refusal to consent must be honored, even if death is the likely result. However, one hears that there is a legally recognized “right to die” unless the interest of a state overrides the right of the patient. Meanwhile, there would be a civil liability for treatment that is rendered in the face of a competent patients refusal to consent and that a court would not normally order treatment for the patient (Showalter, 2008). The personal right of self- determination trumps society’s interest in preserving life. According to the common law right to refuse medical care , expressed while competent and proven by clear convincing evidence, must be honored if the patient later becomes incompetent. Therefore a court should not order a continuation of treatment nor will the substituted judgment rule (Showalter, 2008).