Informed Consent Case Study

The practically speaking, the case of Nancy Cruzan highlights the fact that an individual cannot rely only on telling his would be decision maker what type of care is desired should that individual become incompetent. Such evidence may not be viewed as sufficient to refuse medical treatment as happened with Nancy Cruzan. It thereby becomes important to record exactly what type of treatment should be accepted or refused if one’s decision making capacity is lost. The most common way to do this is in the form of an advance directive. Such a document would declare not only who the patient wants a surrogate decision maker, but also relates the degree of treatment desired by the patient. The presence of an advance directive makes caring for incompetent patients much easier because confusion over the patient’s wishes is avoided. Had Nancy Cruzan made an advance directive, withdrawing the artificial nutrition

This case is the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia in 1993. Sue Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; more commonly know as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 1991. Rodriguez was aware that this disease would eventually lead to her not being able to breathe on her own, move on her own, or even eat without a feeding tube. Rodriguez had the attitude that she wanted to enjoy as much of life as possible, but when the time came that she could no longer enjoy life, she wanted the assistance of a doctor to end her life. In her own words, she asked, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”(Windsor Sun). In the opinion of Rodriguez, she should have the choice to end her life, and that if she could not do the act without assistance, it should be legal for a physician to help her. She ended up losing her case in a Supreme Court appeal. The decision stated, “No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is consensus, human life must be respected.” (Windsor

The appellant of the Cruzan v. Missouri case was the parents of Nancy Cruzan, Joe Cruzan and Joyce Cruzan. The Cruzans argued that when they made the decision to hook Nancy up to a feeding and hydration tube they were unaware that Nancy would be in the vegetative state permanently, they thought she would make it (Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503).

The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their

Sule stated that, “The Patient Bill of Right adopted by American Hospitals Association states that ‘a patient possesses the right to be informed of the medical consequences of his or her actions and decisions and refuse treatment to the extent permitted by the law’. However, this is true only if the patient is in position to understand the consequences of his treatment. Incompetent, senile patients neither have the correct judgment regarding which treatment is appropriate for them, nor are they in a state of understanding the implications of their treatment. In such case, their willingness to grant or deny consent cannot dictate the course of treatment.” Problem with the Act is being able to find that the patient component enough to make such a call. Another issue that Sule stated was on confidentiality and autonomy. According to Sule, “This is another ethical issue erupting from the conflict of patient's rights and professional ethics in nursing job and profession. The Patient Bill of Right makes it mandatory for the medical practitioners to reveal the form and extent of the ailment along with the course of treatment to be undertaken by the practitioners. However, this law of autonomy clashes with the nursing ethic that the professional should maintain high degree of confidentiality regarding the patient's health and treatment.” This can cause conflicting issues in the NP’s

An example of this Act is the very popular Nancy Cruzan Case. Although Nancy was left in a vegetative state resulting from a car accident, her parents were able to make the decision to have her removed from feeding tubes because Nancy expressed before the accident that she never wanted to be kept alive from breathing or feeding tubes. This Act really promotes Advanced Directives and hospitals, clinics and other providers that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds to provide patients with written information about their right and the information must clearly state the institutions policies on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

Support from a patient. The court ruled that competent individuals have the right to refuse

In the CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) case that was presented to the Supreme Court in 1990 was about a woman named Nancy Beth Cruzan and her right to die. The According to thesciencewritinblog.com, “On January 11, 1983 Nancy Beth Cruzan’s car overturned when she was driving home from her job at a cheese factory. She was found face down in a ditch, and although paramedics restarted her heart, 15 minutes without oxygen left her with severe brain damage (Science and Law).” Cruzan stayed in a diligent vegetative state in which she showed no intellectual capacity, yet had reflexes after waking up from her 3 week coma. Cruzan parents wanted take off life support but the hospital refused to do so without a court order because there was no living will so there was no evidence to support that Nancy would have wanted that for herself.

Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack which caused severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain. According to doctors, she was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Terri was on life support and unresponsive for years. Terri’s husband believed Terri wouldn’t have wanted to be on life support if there were no chances of her recovering so he ordered for them to remove her feeding tubes. Unfortunately, her parents weren’t on the same page. They believed there was a possible chance of recovering even though she showed absolutely no signs of recovery. Terri’s husband later petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida to remove her feeding tubes. The court then determined that Terri wouldn’t have wanted to pro-long her life under

After finally accepting that Nancy would not be revived, the family asked the state hospital to remove her feeding tubes so that she could move on. Unfortunately, it could not be this easy. Discovering that Nancy was not allowed by the state to be taken off of life support, they proceeded with legal action. After several suits between the Cruzan family and the state's attorney general in the Missouri court system, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear its first right-to-die case, that of Nancy Cruzan. In a 5-4 decision, the Cruzan family lost, buried in hundreds of pages of the Supreme Court’s opinion. Eventually, their lawyer was able to find the key that would let them retry the case in Missouri, leading them to a victory (Gumm).

Informed consent, by definition, requires the administering health care provider to disclose appropriate information to a competent patient, and allow that patient sufficient time to choose, voluntarily, whether to accept or refuse treatment (Appelbaum, 2007). For children, the law upholds an inability to provide their own informed consent as they lack the decisive ability inherent in consent (Appelbaum, 2007). Thereby, for children, a proxy, as determined by the state laws, chooses the course of treatment on their behalf (Appelbaum, 2007). Furthermore, for children of, an undesignated, reasonable age, a consultation about assent, or willingness for acceptance of treatment or care, should follow a guardian’s decision (Appelbaum, 2007). Responsibility

That's according to a group of Florida bioethicists - doctors, lawyers and other experts in medical ethics. They were invited to analyze House Bill 701, which would prevent doctors from denying food and water to someone in a persistent vegetative state so he or she could die - unless the person's clear, written directive says otherwise.

I agree with the decision reached. The appeal should be dismissed and Professor Starson should be deemed to have the capacity to make his own medical decisions. This is because of the provision set out in section 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act which sets out the test for incapacity which is the defining issue of this case. The section states that the individual must be able to; understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about the treatment, and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision. If one is to determine whether Professor Starson lacks capacity to make is own medical decisions regarding treatment they would first have to apply both of the components of the aforementioned

In the early months of 2005, Terri Schiavo’s life story, involving her persistent vegetative state (PVS) captured the worldwide spotlight and brought up controversial issues surrounding guardian care of the patient, as well as the overall decisions made by Congress. The government involvement in her case impeded any decisions the family and spouse could properly address for the well being of Schiavo (Montero 166). The governmental court system in Terri Schiavo’s case behaved immorally in regard to the eventual removal of her feeding tube.

These people, suffering unwillingly from an agonizing and dehumanizing disease, should ultimately have the choice between life and death; this is a basic human right guaranteed to every individual. Every person has control over their life and what they do with it, so, in the end, the choice between living and dying should be in their hands. According to a college professor, Howard Ball, “The right to self-determination is guaranteed by the ‘liberty’ provision in the U.S. Constitution's due process clause. A terminally ill patient has the liberty to choose death...It is an absolute right possessed by an individual; the government cannot abrogate it” (Ball 2015 para. 14). The debate of which this act should become legal or not is obsolete according to the Constitution, however the government still tries to go against