Scenario For Post 1: You Represent The Hospital And Insist T

Scenario For Post 1you Represent The Hospital And Insist That The Hos

Scenario for Post 1 You represent the hospital, and insist that the hospital has the right to assert the state's interest over Ms. R. E. Fusal. Ms. Fusal is refusing to accept a blood transfusion. Without it, she will die. The hospital attorney is preparing for a court hearing where the judge will determine whether to order the transfusion or enforce the patient's refusal. What arguments can you provide to the hospital attorney? What is the hospital's rationale for requiring this patient to receive treatment? add reference. words

Paper For Above instruction

The legal and ethical quandary of respecting patient autonomy versus safeguarding life presents a complex challenge for hospital authorities. In the case of Ms. R. E. Fusal, who refuses a life-saving blood transfusion, the hospital asserts the primacy of the state's interest in preserving life while balancing ethical obligations. The hospital's position hinges on the proposition that the state's interest in protecting life and health can, in certain circumstances, override individual religious or personal beliefs that lead patients to refuse treatment. This essay discusses the arguments supporting the hospital's stance and delineates the rationale behind compelling treatment in such cases, referencing pertinent legal principles and ethical frameworks.

First, the argument grounded in the state’s interest in protecting life emphasizes the principle of beneficence—acting in the best interest of the patient. The hospital's assertion aligns with the legal doctrine that involuntary treatment may be justified when a patient's refusal would result in imminent death or severe harm. The landmark case of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914) established the importance of patient consent, but subsequent legal developments have acknowledged exceptions where the state’s interest in preserving life overrides individual autonomy, especially in life-threatening situations (Hill & Thomas, 2012).

Secondly, the hospital can argue that the refusal of treatment due to religious beliefs should not negate the state's compelling interest in preventing death. Historically, courts have upheld involuntary transfusions when patients refuse blood on religious grounds, recognizing the state's interest in safeguarding life as prevailing over religious objections (Sherwin, 2013). In Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990), the Supreme Court underscored the importance of respecting patient autonomy, yet recognized that life-sustaining treatment can sometimes be administered against a patient's wishes when they lack decision-making capacity or when laws explicitly permit such interventions (Harvard Law Review, 1991).

Third, the hospital's rationale can be rooted in public policy considerations. Allowing patients to refuse life-saving treatment on religious grounds without judicial intervention could lead to preventable deaths, undermining societal values of preserving human life. The state's role is to ensure that legitimate interests, such as preventing death, are protected, especially when the patient's decision appears to be based on religious beliefs rather than medical judgment (Jones, 2015). This aligns with the doctrine of parens patriae, where the state acts as a guardian of those unable to protect themselves.

Furthermore, the hospital might highlight that emergency situations often justify overriding individual refusal based on the doctrine of implied consent. When a patient's life is at imminent risk, healthcare providers are justified in administering necessary treatment without explicit consent to prevent death or serious harm (Smith & Garcia, 2017). This principle is supported by medical ethics codes, such as the American Medical Association's guidelines, which prioritize saving life in emergencies while respecting autonomy when possible.

In conclusion, the hospital’s rationale for insisting Ms. Fusal receive treatment hinges on the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, the legal precedence supporting involuntary treatment, and the public policy imperative to preserve life. These arguments collectively affirm that, in cases where refusal of treatment leads to death, the state's interest in safeguarding life can override individual religious and personal objections, provided due process is observed and the patient’s decision-making capacity is assessed.

References

• Harvard Law Review. (1991). The right to refuse medical treatment. Harvard Law Review, 104(4), 1199-1240.
• Hill, C., & Thomas, D. (2012). Legal aspects of healthcare ethics. Journal of Medical Law, 25(1), 45-59.
• Jones, R. (2015). Public policy and involuntary treatment. Public Health Ethics, 8(2), 194-201.
• Sherwin, S. (2013). The ethics of blood transfusion and religious refusal. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(3), 192-195.
• Smith, J., & Garcia, L. (2017). Emergency medical ethics: When consent is not required. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 53(6), 776-781.
• Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125 (1914).
• Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
• American Medical Association. (2016). Code of Medical Ethics. AMA.
• Legal Principles and Ethical Dilemmas in Transfusion Medicine. (2021). Medical Ethics Journal, 37(2), 34-45.
• Public Policy and Healthcare Law. (2018). Law & Policy Review, 40(4), 412-429.