A Legal And Ethical Dilemma Contributed By Alan S Whi 992999

A Legal And Ethical Dilemmacontributed By Alan S Whiteman Phd Facmp

A legal and ethical dilemma involving the care of Mrs. Greene at Shady Brook Skilled Nursing Facility requires careful consideration of her rights, her well-being, and the responsibilities of healthcare providers and her family. The core issue revolves around whether the facility should honor her expressed wishes, possibly to hasten death, in light of her declining health, cognitive impairment, and the conflicting interests of her son, David, who has expressed the desire to see her die sooner.

The facts pertinent to this case include Mrs. Greene’s background of independence, her subsequent diagnosis of mild dementia, her residence at Shady Brook, and her observed behaviors, such as declining appetite and verbal expressions indicating a desire to hasten death. Her son, David, holds power of attorney and has exhibited agitation and anger towards staff, especially after overhearing or witnessing her distress during visits. Crucially, David delivered a sealed envelope to the facility's administrator threatening legal action if his mother’s wishes were not followed, implying a potential desire to withdraw care or hasten her death.

Alternative solutions the ethics committee might consider include: (1) continuing current care practices with enhanced psychological and palliative support aimed at comfort, (2) undertaking a comprehensive reassessment of Mrs. Greene’s capacity and wishes regarding her care, especially her verbal expressions, (3) consulting an independent medical ethics consultant to evaluate her mental capacity and her prior directives, (4) initiating a family meeting to explore her apparent distress and desires, and (5) implementing advanced care planning or non-aggressive comfort measures in alignment with her best interests and ethical standards.

The consequences of these alternatives vary. From Mrs. Greene’s perspective, continuing supportive care and reassessment could provide her with dignity and comfort, preserving her autonomy as much as possible. Conversely, if her wishes to hasten death are genuine and clearly expressed, honoring them could align with respecting her autonomy or her right to refuse treatment, but it also raises significant ethical and legal issues related to euthanasia and assisted dying. For Shady Brook, continuing care with palliative approaches might maintain their role as caregivers committed to beneficence and non-maleficence, while acting upon her expressed wishes to hasten death could expose the facility to legal liability and professional ethical dilemmas, particularly if the capacity to make such decisions is uncertain or compromised.

From the standpoint of patient rights, respecting Mrs. Greene’s autonomy entails honoring her expressed wishes if she has the capacity to make such decisions. This includes assessing her mental competence and ensuring her statements are voluntary and well-informed. If she is found to be competent, her right to refuse treatment or request hastened death must be considered seriously, within the limits of legal statutes and ethical guidelines. If she lacks capacity, her previously expressed wishes or her best interests become the guiding principles, emphasizing beneficence and non-maleficence.

Based on the information provided, my recommendation to the ethics committee is to conduct an urgent, multidisciplinary capacity assessment of Mrs. Greene to determine whether she has the mental capacity to make decisions about her care and whether her claims or wishes have been expressed voluntarily and with understanding. If she is deemed competent, her autonomy should be respected, and her expressed desires should guide her care plan, including palliative measures to ensure comfort. If she lacks capacity, her best interests, previously expressed wishes (if any), and her quality of life should be prioritized, avoiding actions that could hasten death unless explicitly legally permissible and ethically justified.

Regarding Betty’s comment that David needs the money to educate his children, the ethics committee should not consider this remark as a valid factor in their decision-making process. Ethical deliberations must focus on the patient’s rights, her current condition, her expressed wishes, and legal statutes. Personal motives such as financial gain are irrelevant and potentially unethical considerations that could bias the decision, compromising the integrity of the process and the rights of Mrs. Greene. The committee’s role is to safeguard her dignity, autonomy, and well-being, independent of family financial interests.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Mrs. Greene at Shady Brook Skilled Nursing Facility presents a profound ethical dilemma centered around her wishes, her capacity to make decisions, and the responsibilities of healthcare providers. The core issue is whether the facility should honor her potential request to hasten death based on her expressions of frustration, depression, and verbal desires, especially in light of her cognitive decline and her son’s interference, which includes threats of legal action.

Mrs. Greene’s background highlights her prior independence, her recent decline due to dementia, and her emotional responses to her changed circumstances. Her son, David, holds durable power of attorney, but his behavior—anger, frustration, and threats—raises questions about his motives and the influence of financial considerations. His dismissiveness toward staff concerns and his confidential threat to sue if her wishes are not “carried out” suggest a possible conflict between her autonomy and his desires, possibly clouded by financial interests, as noted in the skepticism expressed by the facility’s administrator, Betty Wright.

It is essential to consider alternative solutions such as conducting an independent capacity assessment, ensuring Mrs. Greene’s current wishes are clearly understood, and exploring her mental state and level of awareness. Engaging the patient with palliative care options that prioritize comfort while respecting her dignity can be a compassionate approach. Family meetings involving social workers, ethicists, and legal counsel could clarify her desires, reconcile conflicts, and establish ethically sound care protocols.

The consequences of these options are multifaceted. Supporting her comfort through palliative measures respects her autonomy and possibly alleviates her suffering, but if her expressions are determined to be influenced by cognitive impairment or emotional distress, her wishes may not be fully autonomous. Respecting her independence aligns with legal standards for informed consent and decision-making capacity, yet failing to thoroughly assess her capacity could lead to ethically and legally questionable decisions.

From an ethical perspective, patient rights should be at the forefront of decision-making. Respect for autonomy requires verifying her decision-making capacity, especially in the context of dementia. Her prior verbalizations, emotional state, and expressed desires should be carefully evaluated to determine whether her wishes are consistent and voluntary. If she is competent, her choices about her care or end-of-life preferences should be honored, including the possibility of withholding or withdrawing treatment in favor of comfort care.

I recommend that the ethics committee prioritize a formal capacity assessment, involve an interdisciplinary team, and consider her expressed wishes carefully. If she is deemed competent and desires to end her life or decline further treatment, these wishes should be respected within the bounds of law and professional ethics. If she lacks capacity, then her best interests and previously expressed preferences, if available, should guide care. The focus should be on alleviating suffering without hastening death unjustifiably, always balancing beneficence and non-maleficence.

Regarding Betty’s comment about David’s financial motives, it is essential for the ethics committee to remain impartial and basing decisions on ethical principles and legal standards. Personal motives, such as financial gain, are irrelevant and inappropriate considerations. The committee must maintain a focus on Mrs. Greene’s dignity, autonomy, and well-being, ensuring that decisions are free from conflict of interest or improper influence. The ethical framework requires prioritizing the patient’s rights and best interests above all other considerations.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Washington, DC: Author.
• Arnold, M. J., & Moody, A. L. (2018). Atypical Antipsychotics for Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Children and Adolescents. American Family Physician, 97(11), 5-6.
• Cavanagh, M., Quinn, D., Duncan, D., Graham, T., & Balbuena, L. (2017). Oppositional defiant disorder is better conceptualized as a disorder of emotional regulation. Journal of Attention Disorders, 21(5), 1-9. doi:10.1177/
• Goertz-Dorten, A., Benesch, C., Berk-Pawlitzek, E., Faber, M., Hautmann, C., Hellmich, M., & Doepfner, M. (2019). Efficacy of individualized social competence training for children with oppositional defiant disorders/conduct disorders: A randomized controlled trial with an active control group. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(2), 65-65. doi:10.1007/s-x
• Katzmann, J., Dà¶pfner, M., & Gà¶rtz-Dorten, A. (2018). Child-based treatment of oppositional defiant disorder: Mediating effects on parental depression, anxiety and stress. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(9), 81-92. doi:10.1007/s
• Legal frameworks regarding end-of-life decision-making and euthanasia. (Various sources)
• Ramsay, G., & Emanuel, L. (2020). Ethical issues in end-of-life care. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(1), 55-58.
• Smith, K., & Jones, L. (2019). Capacity assessment in older adults with dementia. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33(4), 224-230.
• White, L. D., & Brody, H. (2018). Ethical principles and end-of-life decision making. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 21(7), 873-875.
• World Health Organization. (2021). Palliative Care and End-of-Life Decision-Making.