Ethical Healthcare Issues Essay Example for Free

ethical Health fretting Issues EssayEthical dilemmas in health care are often the most difficult to navigate. Quite often the life of a soul depends on the decision made when a challenge arises. This is certainly the case regarding tolerants in a unchanging vegetal state. These cases have provoked very strong, opposing opinions throughout the medical community. Generating a definitive wait on to how a facility handles these situations is extremely important to ensure appropriate ethical policy is followed throughout the care or termination of medical services for a individual in a constant vegetive state. Four ethical precepts assist in guiding the ethical conversation autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.AutonomyPreserving a patients autonomy is a standard ethical policy for health care interpretrs. Examples of how doctors and facilities cling to a patients right to independence include Advance send offives, the Patient Self-Determination Act, and HIP AA. The problem is that vegetational patients are not competent to refuse continued treatment, and on that point is cin one casern roughly how best to protect them from treatment that they would probably refuse if they could (Jennett, 2002, p. 356). A patient who has the unforeseen misfortune of entering into the aeonian vegetative state may not have the venture to express their stance through an Advance Directive on how he or she wish to proceed medically, therefore stripping him or her of the right to autonomy.some(a) patients may have expressed their wishes in impressally to their family members and loved ones, such as the desire to donate variety meat when the time comes. If the decision were made to end medical care in a more direct and rapid way, organs would have a better chance of becoming used to help opposites, which would reanimate some of the patients autonomy (Wade, 2001). Most people would rather donate their organs for the usefulness of others, rather than r emain in an unconscious state, when given the choice. Unfortunately, these patients are not given a chance to voice that opinion.NonmaleficenceNonmeleficence is the ethical principle to do no slander. It could be argued that a person in a permanent vegetative state feels nothing, and that poses the question regarding whether or not one can do harm to someone who does not feel anything emotionally or physically (Wade, 2001). In addition, continued treatment very may be doing harm to the patient. There have been many declarations that survival in a permanent vegetative state is not a benefit to the patient, some regarding it as a fate worse than death (Jennett, 2002, p. 356).There are opposing viewpoints that believe patients in a vegetative state rattling may be aware of their surroundings. According to Hope (2011) a study confirmed, patients thought to be in a permanently vegetative state may still be able to think and get (para. 1). Although this may sound hopeful for loved on es, for some patients being aware of surroundings but not able to move or communicate is doing more harm to them. Would it be more nonmaleficent to end their measly if they have poor quality of life?BeneficenceThe philosophical question beneficence raises is will an unawareness patient benefit from an act of good (Wade, 2001)? The patient is not aware of any kind or unkind act done to him or her in an unconscious state. Ongoing treatment could bring about a recovery, but a patient may not view this as beneficent. The state that their form and mind would be in and the quality of life they would have is questionable for whether or not keeping the patient alive was actually doing him or her any good. Beneficence can also relate to the survivors of the patient. In many cases, it is the willingness of the family to keep the patient alive in the hopes of a miracle even if it is against what the doctors suggest (Brody, 1988). Is it beneficent to the patients family to remain in a stat e of ongoing grief when there is no improvement in sight?JusticeJustice is the most applied ethical principle for arguing for or against termination of treatment for patients in a permanent vegetative state. One course that can be brocaded is whether or not it is fair to continue to allocate resources for a person in this state when it limits the care and resources other patients could be receiving (Wade, 2001). If a person is in a permanent unconscious state and doctors have determined that he or she will not regain consciousness or live a normal life, should the care and services he or she are employ be given to a patient who has a greater chance of recovery. In addition, consider the monetary value to society for paying for the ongoing resources and care these patients will need (Brody, 1988). Is it fair to impose that cost on others? Instead, the funds could be used to save the lives of others. However, if the policy became to end patients care once they have reached a perman ent vegetative state it could be said that attitudes may change toward other severely disabled people and the ongoing care they receive (Wade, 2001).Providers compassion may begin to be diminished over time through seeing the termination of care on these permanent vegetative patients, and it may desensitize them in a way that would make it difficult for them to provide any ongoing care to disabled people. Terminating an individuals life whether it is physician-assisted or merely halt food sources will always pose huge ethical concerns, even if the patient is in a permanent vegetative state and cannot express emotion or feel pain. Forming an opinion on the issuance is not easy, and there are many parties who have interest in the outcome such as the patient, their family, the staff providing care, the facility providing care, and society. By applying the four ethical principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice healthcare administrators can begin to form an ethic al opinion to shape the way their facility approaches the many challenges permanent vegetative patients cause.ReferencesBrody, B. A. (1988). Ethical questions raised by the persistent vegitative patient. The Hastings Center Report, 18(1), 33-37. Hope, J. (2001, November 10). Vegitative patients can still think and respond. Daily Mail, 0(0), 28. Jennett, B. (2002). The vegitative state. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73(4), 355-357. Wade, D. T. (2001). Ethical issue in diagnosis and management of patients in the permanent vegetative state. BMJ British Medical Journal, 322(7282), 352-354.