The Legal and Ethical Principles in Healthcare Free-Samples

Question: Discuss about the Legal and Ethical Principles in Healthcare. Answer: Introduction Healthcare is one of the most important pillars of the government commissioned to enhance the welfare of the community. There are various activities experienced on a daily basis concerning the health and welfare of individuals. The constitution of every state takes into account the laws and policies that should be followed for maximum service provision for the society. The welfare of every individual in the community is equally important and the health institution should maximise their services to reduce the level of illness in the community. Some medical conditions are thought to be resistive to drugs among others being yet to be conquered; moreover, research institution is stretching their potentials to be able to invent the best appropriate drugs(Pozgar, 2014). Despite having health conditions that do not have confirmed medicines, others such as diabetes have drugs that are used in controlling the condition. However, these drugs need to be used consistently and failure to that, complications might be experienced. Every person is entitled to quality health care despite their medical condition. Before any medical intervention, the patient should read, understand and confirm its applications to ensure that all the implications are accounted. In cases where the patient is not able to perform all the requirements of the consent, a family member or guardian can make the informed decisions concerning the treatment. In this paper, legal and ethical issues will be explored concerning the case of Edward, who was in a comma for failing to manage Type 1 Diabetes(Lin, et al., 2013). Legal Issues Mr Edward has been living and fairly managing Type 1 Diabetes very well by the use of insulin and avoiding the meals that the doctor had warned. However, the body is prone to many health conditions that should be medicated if the signs and symptoms are experienced. It is also important to seek guidance from the medical practitioners if unusual changes in the body are pursued. Edward developed sore muscle pains but he did not think it could be much of a problem because there were no severe symptoms. His wife Genevieve advised him to visit the doctor to get a report on the same and if it is a worse condition, he would receive relevant medical support immediately. He did not embrace the advice from his wife, but he used paracetamol, lemon juice and warm honey. This was not according to the doctor's recommendations and this would conflict the management of diabetes conditions(Lin, et al., 2013). According to the Australian Health Act 2008, it states that the community should be kept healthy by providing the best medication available(Stirton, 2016). This act governs both the public and private health institutions in the country. It also states the nest of kin and guardians are responsible for providing decisional support for their patients. However, an individual has the right to make personal health decisions. Edward decided not to visit the doctor for the sore muscles and used the stated control measures. His wife Genevieve did not have the right to force him to seek the required medication because he is a grown up. The medical assumptions made by Edward led to worsening of the Type 1 Diabetes when he went to work out of town. Edward was taken to the hospital while in a comma and he could not make any decision concerning his medical support. Later, his family realised that he was in the hospital because his condition has worsened. The best of the health support that Edward could receive was appropriate diabetes type 1 and comma related first aid services and before the family member could show up to make the informed consent medical decisions. According to his case, either Genevieve or his mother Una could provide the required informed support because they are all legally attached to him(Faden, Beauchamp, Kass, 2014). Una is Edward's biological mother and she has the right to make informed decisions under the law. Genevieve has been provided with the right to make a decision about Edward's health because she is legally married to him. The importance of consulting and following the consent process is to avoid holding the doctors responsible for any misfortunes that might happen in the treatment process. Fo r instance, if a treatment intervention is implemented without signing the consent form by either the patient or the family and death occurs, the doctors could be answerable and they can be sued(Kerridge, Lowe, Stewart, 2013). Informed decisional support conflicts are one of the most dangerous occasions in cases where the patient is unable to contribute in the process of treatment. This situation is experienced when there are two or more potential individuals to provide the support(Lin, et al., 2013). The issue occurs when one or two of the individuals have differing opinions in how the medical intervention should be conducted. For instance, one might state that the intervention should be stopped and the other wishing to a continuity. In Edwards case, Una thought that more effort and time could be allowed to give him another chance of recovery. The medical support should not be withdrawn when there is a conflict because it might lead to blames, hence leading to a court case. For example, Una can sue the medical team if the support is withdrawn when she is able and willing to pay the bill in time. Also, she can sue Genevieve in occasions when her decision is followed and Edward dies because she is also a si gnificant decision make in Edwards treatment(Pozgar, 2014). Some of the factors that should be considered in solving the conflicts between the two would include the availability of resources to support the treatment and their willingness to take the medical risks. Una stated that she would do what it takes to pay for the extra medical care required to keep his son the life support machine. On the other side, Edward has told his wife Genevieve that he would not like to be in a helpless state in his life. Therefore, Genevieve was honouring the wishes of her husband, although it is against the law to let a person die when there is a way of controlling the case. Therefore, the best option would be adhering to Unas decision and maintain the medical support until he either recovers or otherwise(Kerridge, Lowe, Stewart, 2013). Ethical Issues There are ethical issues that are attached to any medical treatment interventions that need to be considered to avoid conflicts and legal cases that might arise. There are Universal Declaration and Bioethics that have been developed to govern the health sector and ensure that all the requirements connected to medical services are accounted. Benefit Harm and Persons without the Capacity to Consent are the two principles of the Universal Declaration and Bioethics principles that are most relevant in Edwards case(Petrini, 2014). Benefit and harm principle states that before implementing any scientific treatment method, all the process should be justified to be no harm to the patient. Therefore, the medical interventions should be focused on providing the best health support to the patients. In cases, where the treatment are perceived be of general benefit to the patient, it should be used reduce the discomforts experienced(Faunce, 2012). Edward was not in the capacity to adhere to the informed consent, hence involving the family in the decision-making process for the treatment. This principle states that before any form of medical practice is undertaken, an informed consent should be signed by one of the most appropriate family member or guardian. Consultations should be done consistently in the process to ensure that the patient receives the best services out of the medical care. In cases where there are trial drugs that can be tested, the research practice should be of the best support for the patients medical needs. Medical interventions and research proceedings that do not have direct medical importance and benefit to the patient should not be used in the treatment process. Therefore, the medical process should be imposed with minimal burden and risk to the patient(Mayes, Lipworth, Kerridge, 2016). Edward's treatment should be implemented after it is justified that the intervention bears the minimum risk in his health. Moreover, a treatment process that has the highest chance of making him recover should opt. Genevieve's option of withdrawing the life support treatment should not opt because it causes harm to Edward and his mother Una(Kaufmann Rhli, 2010). The two principles; patients without the capacity to sign the informed consent and benefit harm can possibly conflict in the case of Edward. The opinion of the patient is best followed to ensure that the treatment in peace with their wishes. Edward told his wife Genevieve that it would be his last wish to be in a helpless condition hence preferring to die. Therefore, the medical team have shown insufficient hope in his recovery and it can only take the life support machines to keep alive. Therefore, it would be his wish is the medical plan is stopped, which harms him and the family, hence conflicting both of the principles. It is the right of Genevieve to sign the informed consent and she wishes the withdrawal of the medical treatment plan. However, this is the human rights act 2004, that advocates for healthy community and respect for human dignity(Stirton, 2016). Life of a person is a gift offered by the supreme leader and there are no individuals with the right to take it away. It is very important to provide Edward with the best time possible for his recovery and not just to pull off the treatment procedures. Letting him die will be a loss to the family by making his two children be single parented. The human rights principles do not support the withdrawal of the treatment plan; however, it advocates for the implementation of best health care services that can lead to his recovery by managing the conditions. External advisors should be involved to provide the required support to the parties so that they can agree on one option. The medical team should therefore not rush them in the decision support to avoid influencing any form of an inappropriate option. After deciding on one of the options, the informed consent should be signed by both parties to avoid future problems(Taylor, 2015). The non-regrettable decision should be opted to keep eve ry individual party in peace in future even after the unexpected happen on Edwards health. Conclusion In conclusion, constitutional health and welfare acts should be fairly considered in imposing any decision towards Edwards treatment. Both Genevieve and Unas opinion should be considered in signing the informed consent and deciding whether to withdraw the services or not. External and family consultations should be conducted for the case of making the best decision towards the health of Edward(Lo, 2012). Finally, the medical team should do the best practice possible to try stabilising Edwards health condition to restore the familys happiness. References Cohen, I. (2013). Globalization of Health Care. Cary: Oxford University Press, USA. Faden, R., Beauchamp, L., Kass, E. (2014). Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care . N Engl J Med, 370(6), 766-768. Faunce, T. (2012). Governing planetary nanomedicine: environmental sustainability and a UNESCO universal declaration on the bioethics and human rights of natural and artificial photosynthesis (global solar fuels and foods). Nanoethics, 6(1), 15-27. Furrow, B. R., Greaney, T. L., Johnson, S. H., Jost, T. S., Schwartz, R. L. (2013). Health Law: Materials and Problems. Minnesota: West Academic. Kaufmann, I. M., Rhli, F. J. (2010). Without informed consent? Ethics and ancient mummy Research. Journal of medical Ethics. Kerridge, I., Lowe, M., Stewart, C. (2013). Ethics and law for the health professions (4 ed.). Leichhardt: The Federation Press. Lin, M. Y., Lyles-Banks, R. D., Lolans, K., Hines, D. W., Spear, J. B., Petrak, R. (2013). The importance of long-term acute care hospitals in the regional epidemiology of diabetes type 1. Clinical infectious diseases, 500. Lo, B. (2012). Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Wilkins. Matsubara, J., Sugiyama, S., Akiyama, E., Iwashita, S., Kurokawa, H., Ohba, K., Hokimoto. (n.d.). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, improves endothelial dysfunction in association with its anti-inflammatory effects in patients with coronary artery disease and uncontrolled diabetes. Circulation Journal, 77(5), 1337-1344. Mayes, C., Lipworth, W., Kerridge, I. (2016). Declarations, accusations and judgement: examining conflict of interest discourses as performative speech-acts. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 19(3), 455-462. Petrini, C. (2014). Organ Allocation Policies 10 Years after UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Transplantation Proceedings, 48(2), 296-298. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.10.059 Pozgar, G. D. (2014). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals. Burlington: Jones Bartlett Publishers. Saul, P. (2013). Neat model for ethical problem solving. The Medical Journal of Australia, 199(7), 511. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.5694/mja13.10868 Spofford, C., Easker, D. (2015). Unresponsive Patient in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Mededportal Publications. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10005 Stirton, R. (2016). The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: A Litany of Fundamental Flaws? The Modern Law Review, 299-324. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12255 Taylor, H. (2015). Legal and ethical issues in end of life care: implications for primary health care. Primary Health Care, 25(5), 34-41. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.7748/phc.25.5.34.e1032