Cookie Ethics Case Study

There is a positive impact on hospitals or clinics, providers and insurers in that they are all responsible for giving information on the rights of patients when they get admitted. Adult patients must be provided with written information by the healthcare facility about decision making in health and this is based on informed consent.

It is also clear that while making these decisions, the decisions ought to be made based on informed consent (Werth and Crow 195). Sometime, the patient may be experiencing dementia, clinical depression or delirium for which they may be affecting the patient’s decision making capabilities (Werth and Crow 197, 198). If such a person is allowed to make their right-to-die decision, this may be done without the patient having comprehensive information before consent and thus should not be encouraged (Werth and Crow 198).

Every seriously ill patient and their family should have decided the following issues: proxy, resuscitation, hospitalization, and specific treatments. Every seriously ill person needs to have pointed out a person to speak on their behalf when they get too sick to do so. A “proxy” can be filled out at any hospital or nursing home granting “power of attorney” to a loved one to be able to make decisions. A person

Many times it is uncertain to decide what is best for a human being when they are brought into hospital emergency rooms. As health itself is such a complex and dynamic subject matter, doctors do their very best to ensure the patient gets the treatment they need. However, there is a system in place, which suggests physicians should perform such medical intervention if those are the patient's wishes. The following is a ethical case dilemma regarding Michael. Michael, 21 year old patient, consented to being a organ donor prior to his motor-vehicle accident, and is medically declared brain dead. There is a ethical dilemma for both the physician and patient regarding what the right thing to do is, as Michael’s family value’s are in conflict of interest with his interest and consent being organ donor. Thus, The nature of this dilemma can be experienced from different perspectives. The who is having difficulty in accepting the brain death of Michael, hence the doctors informing Michael’s consent on being a organ donor affects the family. The family is unable to decide for their loved one as to when to “pull the plug” as they strongly believe that his life should be sustained as the heart is yet beating.The family is unable to cope with the situation and disagree with the medical team that their family member, Michael, has suffered from brain death and should not longer be kept on life sustaining support. The family also is not accepting of his consent for organ procurement.

2. Non-voluntary, as the patient is unable to express his wishes due to conditions such as extreme pain, dementia, coma, etc. (There exists a legally binded contract, that makes sure the individual expresses his wish before, in order to make

The dignity and freedom of a patient should be respected so that people can make their own choices and develop their own life plans in the context of the society they belong to. . An individual has every right to take their own choices. A health care provider cannot treat a patient without his or her permission. If the patient is unable give the consent, then a lawful surrogate can provide consent. A lawful surrogate requires certain criteria like competence or has decision making capacity and is capable of realizing the consequence of consent. The consent from the patient may be implicit or explicit depending on the seriousness of health issues. Serious health issues like intrusive procedures

Since the patient is unable to provide the consent based on the information presented by the doctor, the informed consent will rely on the healthcare directive or next of kin. There is the possibility of the next of kin agreeing with the patient’s wishes, which can cause a delay in a decision. Many family members are unable to make the decision to take a patient off of the ventilator even after being declared brain dead. (Health, 2015)

For a patient to make his decision he/she must able to read the consent and understand it before making any decision. The great thing about the consent form are that they are written

The fastest way to correct this issue is through prior planning with the help of a lawyer. Patients should make their wishes known on a legal document and tell their family their wishes before they wind up on a hospital bed leaving people practically guessing about what their wishes were. According to Jost, experts say assigning a healthcare proxy, and having a living will would remove the burden of the family to make major life decisions which can create stress for both the family and the patient in the event of an emergency. Only a small number of Americans have taken these steps in the event of an emergency unfortunately, which leaves millions of future patients fate up to their own family (Jost 1). The choices the family makes may not be what the patient actually wants, and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. According to Palmisano, in a famous work by a social scientist from the eighteenth century, Emilie Durkheim, the resistance in dying, and the whole grieving process is a natural response to social norms. He says, if a person doesn’t exhibit any sort of resistance they are in fact suicidal. Durkheim points out that over the last 100 years the role of caretaker has evolved from home with the family to the hospital with a doctor, and that relaying information even if uncomfortable is often part of this responsibility

Although the choice would conflict with my desires and the principle of beneficence, respect for the patient’s autonomy, or in this case, the patients’ family’s autonomy, would be paramount. This is because (1) the patient(s) are presumed to be under an age where they can make informed decisions about their healthcare and are thus still under the directive of their parents and (2) I would not choose to violate the parent’s strong held principles for themselves and their children.

Over the past several decades, the principle of respect for patient autonomy has assumed a central place in health care. Indeed, respect for the self-determining decisions or interests of patients now is an underlying consideration for most professional codes of practice and also patient codes of rights (Cruess & Cruess, 2008; MacLeod, Wilson & Malpas, 2012). The dilemma now is that fear of losing autonomy or dignity during the dying process could lead some patients to request a hastened death.

This paper will evaluate the medical profession’s compliance in honoring a patients’ living will and durable powers of attorney. Every human being of sound body and mind have the right to decide what happens with their body. If a doctor performs a procedure without the patients consent then that doctor has committed an assault. In the event a patient has done their due diligence and created a living will or obtained a durable power of attorney to manage their wishes or affairs, be it medical, or financial if some unforeseen situation prevents them from speaking or detailing their wishes. The question is, will their legal documents be honored.

It is widely accepted that competent patients should be able to make their own healthcare decisions. This claim is underpinned by the principle of respect for autonomy which is realised through processes such as informed consent and shared decision making. But what happens when the patient cannot participate in decision making;, under these circumstances whose voice should be heard? In the seminal text Principles of Biomedical Ethics Beauchamp and Childress (ref) frame decision making when the patient is incompetent as a problem of lost autonomy and the solutions they propose are

In such cases the law has repeatedly proclaimed the primacy of the patient’s autonomy and self-determination. It has been ruled by the Court of Appeal that a competent adult patient has an absolute right to refuse to consent to medical treatment for any reason or for no reason at all. Their right is not reduced or diminished merely because their decision to exercise it might appear morally repugnant. Once they have made their informed choice, there must be complete acceptance of it with no effort made to dissuade them from it.

The Lew-Mark Baking Company—Archway Cookie’s largest franchise is located in western New York State which produces fifty varieties of high-quality soft cookies with no preservatives added. The soft cookies mostly appeal to customers over 45 years old and to parents who have young children.