Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Choose a health care issue with controversial ethical and legal implications that was at the center of a high visibility case in the public domain.
Unit: Health Care Patients: Legal and Ethical Considerations and Issues
Choose a health care issue with controversial ethical and legal implications that was at the center of a high visibility case in the public domain. Some examples of issues include but are not limited to the following:
- Late term abortion
- Assisted suicide
- Surgical errors
- Patient abuse
- Parental refusal of medical treatment of minors for religious reasons
- Transplant patient selection process
- Access to clinical trials by terminal patients
- Gender assignment for infants born with intersex anatomy
- Survivor selection in conjoined twins
- Access to illicit drugs for palliative care
- Withholding hydration or nourishment
- Life support continuation for brain-dead patients
- Medical treatment for the elderly or terminally ill
- Donor organ harvesting
- Use of placebo in clinical trials
- Use of patient data without consent
- Stem cell research and treatments
- Access to treatments not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Note: There is no time frame during which the case must have occurred for this assignment. Please note, however, that any case selected must be analyzed in the context of laws and policies that existed at the time of the case in addition to current laws and policies.
Perform research in the University library using at least 8-10 relevant peer-reviewed academic or professional journal articles that were published within the past 5 years, and complete the following to prepare the report:
- Analyze the ethics of the case from each end of the ethical spectrum (ultraconservative to ultraliberal) from the perspective of 3 of the following stakeholders:Patient,
- Patient's immediate family or guardians
- Emergency medical personnel or first responders
- Doctors, surgeons, specialists, or other medical providers
- The hospital or health care facility
- A pharmaceutical or medical device company
- Identify policies at the federal, state, and local levels relating to the provision of health care and patient rights that played the following roles in the case:Assesses opposing views of these policies from the perspectives of the provider and patient
- Analyzes the implications of these policies on the operations of health care organizations
- Identify at least 3 state or federal laws that are relevant to the case, and complete the following:Evaluate key legal factors that are inherent in the case.
- Assess various policies and procedures that are inherent in these laws that relate to the provision of health care by providers or patient rights.
- Differentiate between the demands of legal policies and ethical issues with relevance to the needs of the provider and patient.
- Formulate an assessment of the potential impact of the case on decision-making options in the future for providers, patients, and administrators.
I choose the topic surgical errors. Please i need the report on surgical errors.
- @
- 165 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $20.00. See answer's preview
******* *** ******* ************* ***************** ******************************************************************** *** ******* ************** ***** **** ********** appropriate ******* ********* ** restrictions ** treatment *** people *** ******** **** severe *** often fatal medical ******** are a ****** of *** ********* ***** **** ******* continuation *** ***** **** ******* ** ***** ******* a matter ** ********** and legislation Stakeholders ***** ** ******** **** the ****** care **** or hospital *********** they may ******** **** answers **** **** as ********** *** ************ ****** than constructive *** *********** *********** ******* **** ** ** ********** avoidable conflicts ******* to ********* clinical **** ******** ***************** **** communication *** ********** ** ******** ****** that **** ** ****** ******** that **** and the ****** **** ********* *** ***** ***** **** for *** ******* ******** ********* **** **** **** to ***** ****** ********** *** clinicians **** ***** * *********** ***** Addressing ***** ******** **** *** ***** about ***** and ******* ******** ***** clinical decisionmaking **** appropriate decisions ** ********** family ****** ******* *** the state concerning patient ********** *** end-of-life ******* **** Decisions that **** ******** ******* ** ***** ********* *** ************* *** ****** on *********** decisions to ****** *********** ** societal ****** ** resource allocation *** ****** ******* ******* ***** *** ****** **** courts ** legislative **** **** ******* ** ******** ****** ** ********** ** ****** ** **** these ****** have *** ******** **** decisions ***** ********** *** end-of-life **** for ********* ******** ******** *** legal parameters ** ******* decisions ***** ******* treatment *** *** ************* *** **** ****** *** ********* ******* by ********** *** family ** inform patients ***** ***** condition ********* **** ******** **** ** inhumane ** ****** imprudent ** cut short *** **** ** ****** ********* ** *** **** **** ********* to ** ****** *** ******* *** ********** social service ********* *** ***** ******* ** ** ********* to differences ** ******** ****** *** experiences *** ** try to ******** conflict and ****** ******** related ** **** differences ** ethically and ******* ******* the *********** Family members **** *** legal right ** **** ********* ***** medical **** *** their ******* *** this parental ********* is occasionally ********** ******* **** ******** refuse ********* recommended ** ***** patient’s ********* ******* of life as a ********* ** ******* *** legal consideration ********* **** the ******** ***** ****** *** ********** ** people is *** ****** *** *** clinical level ****** the ********** of the ******** *** ***** ******** ** *** ****** ***** is ******* ** health **** ************** **** ********** ******************* *** ***** ****** *** CONSIDERATIONS ********** **** ******* CONTINUATION FOR ***** **** PATIENTSIntroduction *********** ** ******* ********** *** ******* ********** *** revolutionized modern medical practice ** *** past **** *** *** ******* fresh ******* and ***** ******** *** ******* practitioners ** **** ** ********* **** support continuation *** ********** ******** ** ***** *** of the **** *********** legal issues ********** **** ********* ********* withdrawal ** **** ********** treatment **** ********* *** ************ patients ***** **** ************** is inevitably likely ** ***** about death ************ the ******** ** ******** ******* *** legal ************** of *********** *** ****** ** ********* such *********** ** **** ********* **** ** Australia ********** ** **** ******* systems **** at present ** still ******** ****** ** common *** *** partly ** ******* ** ***** ********* ******* **** such as *** ******* ***** Actof **** ******** ***************** ***** Act(NT) ** **** ** **** ** the Natural ***** RegulationsActof **** ************ ***** ****** ****** law **** ******* ********** ** ********* in *** ***** ****** as **** as ********* ********** With *** long-term ******** ****** ***** made ******** *** patients ** critical **** the debate remains ********** *************** ** *********** procedures **** ** *********** *** life ******* ***** 2014) ***** *** ****** ** guiding **************************** and *********** in *** ****** **** *** **** **** ******** with **** ***** ******* ********* surrounding decisions ***** ***** involve ******** ** ventilatory **** ******* with ** ***** death might ** suffering from ********* malignancies non-malignant ********* diseases ** ******* ***** ******* *** ******** **** ************ ***** patients may ** in ********** **** ** ***** ******** ********** that *** or *** not ** *********** Various ******* **** a crucial **** in decision ****** ** ******* ** the ******* and that ** ****** ******* ** *** patient or *** patient himself The opinion ** ********* *** **** support *** ** ********** ** the ********* traditions *** ********* faith of * particular state ******* **************** *** incidence ** ******** making ** ********* *** *************** ********** *** **** ** *** **** ** ****** years it ****** be ********* ******* ** ********** ***** * ********** viewpoint *** been ******* ** ***** ** * ***** ****** thereby ******** makers giving more ***** to cost-benefit ****** ***** ** *** always *** ******* *************** ******** ******** ** ******* circles *** in ******* ** ***** ** ** ****** ********** **** * ******* ** **** **** *** ** ** has ************ **** all functions ** *** ****** ******** ****************** functions ********* ******** **** (also ********** ** ************ death whole brain ***** ** ***** *** ************ criteria)Patient Theindividual ******* level ethical analyses ******** focus on *** *********** of ********** ***** ** individual ******** *** ****** ** those close ** ** responsible *** * ******* **** ******** of ******** ************** ******** ****** ******** ** ****** **************** ******** ******* ***** ************** ** ********** *** ****** ** ***** *** ********* ***** ********* who *** ****** ** ****** ******* their *********** **** interests Statutory provisions such as the Natural ***** *** ****** in ***** ********* ******* **** ** ******** *** ****** from ***************** ******** **** is to those ******** ***** ******* ***** is ********* and irreversible andwhere *** application ** ************* ********** ***** onlyserve ** ******* *** ******* ******* ********* *** ******* it ******** * ********** *** ******* *** sound ********* ****** ** * ********** **** ********* either ****** *** ******* **** to the ******** or ******* ** in ******** **** he ** she ****** *** ** ********* ** any *********** measures"for ********** **** (AMRC ***** *** ******* *** ** ** ** sound mind ** the **** ** direction *** ** ** she **** not ** ********* ** the **** **** *** ********* ** ***** ***** **** **** a ********* ********* ***** the ********** **** as *** ******* ***** *** ** avariant ** **** ** ***** ** * (living ***** which ******* a ********* ****** ** advise medical *********** that treatment be ******** ** withdrawn ** ****** some prospect ******* contingency when ** ** *** ******* ****************** ******** *********** or ***** ******* providers * ******* ************ ****** in compliance with thepatient's direction as a result ** ***** *** ******* **** ** not ****** to *** *** ******* ************ death even ***** ** *** **** the ********* ** ***** **** *** ******* has become incompetent ***** *** principle ** ******* ********* ** circumstances ** ** *********** patient ***** **** ** ** danger and ***** ****** are ******* and ***** ** ******* ********** representative *********** ******* to life-saving ********** ** ******* (Applbaum **************** ********* ****** and ********* ** ****** ********* and ******** **** *** ******* *** ***** right ** **** ********* ***** ******* **** *** ***** ******* **** ********* ** ************ challenged usually when ******** refuse ********* *********** by ***** patient’s ********* However ** ** not **** ******** and ********** ****** simply ******* ******** from ************* *** ********* about their **** ******* to provide patients **** *********** and the *********** ** ******* their concerns ***** and *********** *** segregate **** *** add ** ***** worry and other distress Deeply held cultural ****** *** **** ******** ** reject ********* ** ******* *** ******* ** **** ******* the ******* with *********** ***** *** ** *** ********* (Dean 2014) Clinicians *** respect ***** ****** *********** **** ***** *** **************** ** ******* ***** and ***** ***** relative ** ********* ** ********** ******** ********* ******** ********** *** ********** *** disagree ***** ****** **** as ******** ******* ** ********** most **** **** ** ***** **** palliative actions ** life support ******** ** ******* suffering such as ********** the quality ** **** *** ********* **** when *** ********** *********** ** ****** may ** ** ****** death ********* ** criterion *** ** ********* ****** **** ***** **** escalated accordingly ********* *** ****** ************ **** ****** ************ ********* about **** or ********* ********* between *********** ***** ** ********** ******** *** ***** *********** ** support *** **** *** of ******* ******** ** ************* ********* ** support the patients (Joel 2016) The ******* Death *** ** **** ** ***** Australia has ********** that ******* ** ********** *** ******** ********** **** to ** of sound mindto direct ** *** ********** **** ********* ****** ****** the ******* goes to the ******** or whilein ******** that ** or *** should *** ** ********* to any ************* ******** ******** or surgical ******** **** prolong life or that *** intended to ******* **** ** supplementing or *********** *** operation ** bodily ********** ***** *** ***** ********** ******* ***** Act **** ** *************** ** ** *************** of ************* ************ * ******* ********* from a ***** illness ********* * lawful ********* is deemed *** ** ********** * ***** ** death ******* that * ****** practitioner who **** ** ********** **** ************ ********* ** * *********** ** ***** the ******* **** is not ****** ** ***** *** for *********** ************ ***** even ***** ** the **** *** ********* ** ***** upon *** ******* has *********** **** ***** *************** ********* ***** *************** *** Administration ***** Acts *** ******* *** **** ****** ** ****** medicaltreatment ** ****** ** *** represented persons as ****** appointed under *** enduring power of ******** ***** **** *** ******* medical ********* ********* * negation ** ******** administration ** **** supportsystems ** behalf of *** ******* **** *** patient ******* *********** Common *** ****** that * ******* ** ***** **** has the right ** ****** another ****** to ****** *** ** *** ******* ******* *** ***** of ************** after *** giver becomes ********** *********** **** legislations ******* excludes ******* ********* ***** *** ***** ** ****** ********** care ******* the patient *** *** ******** *** ****** ********** care ***** ***** acts **** as *** Medical Treatment *** ******** *** ********* ** ********** medical ********** *** ****** ** pain ********* ************* ********* *** Medical ********* *** protects *********** who ** **** faith *** in ******** ** * ******* ** treatment *********** discontinue ******* ********* **** ***** guilty of an ******* Depending on *** ******** ** *** patient's ********* *** life support ********* *** ******* ********** ************** ** *********** fluids and ******** *********** as well ************* ** ******* cardiac ********** ***** 2013) When realized **** *** ******* *************** **** ************* ** *** developed * ******** ***** ** * ********** ********** state (PVS) the ***** ** ********** ** ********* shall arise and **** it *** ******** ** ******* ****** *** *** lawDemands of legal policies *** ******* ****** **** ********* ** *** ***** ** *** provider *** ******* ****** *********** *** under *********** *** and ************* ** the ************ ** the ***** lawfully *********** ********* ***** ******** life ** a ****** ** *** following circumstances (NSW ****** Involving *** *********** of nourishment and hydration is ** ******** *** not ** *** **** is because **** taken *** ** *** ******** ******** ************** will not ** ****** as a ******** ******* ****** it ** ***** **** *********** **** undera duty ** ******** the treatment ***** **** ********* ********** principles of ***** *** ******** in *** medical **** of care ***** upon **** practice *** *** ******** **** ** * ****** ****** In the ****** ** ******* **** ** **** it ** ******** to utilize *** ***** ******* ** *********** of life ***** *** ******** which *** ***** ************ of * ******* subject to ********** ***** ***** The ******** ** ********** **** support **** ** * ventilator **** support *** ** ******** ** * necessity ** ***** ***** ** is ********* ** prevent cure ** alleviate * ********* **** ********* ********* ** life ** * patientPotential impact ** *************** ******* ** *** future for ********* ******** *** ************** ****** **** ********* ** ****** ***** ******** on ************ death (brain ****** ** ******** to this ********** ******** should form **** ****** ******** ** ******* ***** ******** ************** physicians and *** ******* ** ****** ********* ** *** ** **** ********** **** ***** and *** ethics **** ********* 2012) This **** enable ***** **** ******** ** ****** ********** matters **** *** ********* ******** and rather *** ****** ********** ** ***** predominantly ** ************ ** ethically ********** and shared ************* ******** ********** ********* **** ** ********* to *** *********** **** ********* *** **** to ***** a ****************** ** religious ****** ******** because ** *********** with *** ********* ********** ** *** ********* ************* ******* *** *** ** ******* ******* ********** **** *** Christian ******* *** ****** *** ********* ** ******* ***** ****** *** ******* ******** ***** own beliefs from ***** ** the patient *** ********** ******* the patient’svalues are ** observance **** *** ******* positions ** ***** ***** (Raffin 2013)Conclusion ** ********** ******* ********** *********** *** regulations about ********* ** *** *** ** **** *** ******** *********** may create concern *** fear among care providers **** **** *** ********* ** ******* *** *** practioners ****** *** ******* ******** *** ****** ********* The ******** of **** *** ** a ****** ** misunderstandings of ethical *********** legal ******** *** judicial judgments ****** ************* *** *** ** based ** ********* cautiousness ** *** **** ** ****** ******** or ***** legal ******** *** ********** ***** ***** ********* ********* ****** ** ****** *********** professional ************* and ************* ** improve end-of-life ******* care *** help ******* ******** ***** *** ******** *********** ******* ***** ************ *** **** **** ** ******* broader discussion *** evaluation ** ********** *** ********* ********** and ******** conflicts ***** **** for patients likely *** to ***************** ** ******** ** ** ****** **** Family’s ******* for ************* ******** ***** ******* ***** ******** ******* ** *** ******** ******* *********** No ** (14th *** 2012): 2188-93Academy ** ******* ***** ******** ****** **** Code ** Practice *** *** ********* *** ************ ** Death’ ******* of ******* ***** ******** ** ******* ****** ********** * ****** ****** *************** ****** ** HealthCare *** *** Ethics’ ********** Macmillan IncDepartment ** ****** *** Australian (2014) ******** **** Dignity ******* ********** ** ************* ****** *** ******* Law ReportJoel * ********** **** * Walensky ****** ‘Essential ** Health ****** *** Law: ********* ****** Health’ ******* ******** *************** **** Hazinski RN *** ** al ****** Nursing **** ** ********** *** ******** *** edition ******** ***** *** 3251 ***** ********** ** ****** ************** *** *********** Life ********** ***** Aspects ** Medicine ** JR Vevaina ** **** *** YorkTaylor * Dineen ** ******** ** **** et al ****** *********** ********** (CT) angiography *** ************ ** *** ******** diagnosis ** ***** ******** *** Cochrane ******** of ********** *******
