The MDT Administrated Medication

Besides, if a person lacks mental capacity to give valid consent, nurses caring for such a person should be involved in assessing the treatment to be administered. However, they must be “aware of the legislation regarding mental capacity, ensuring that people who lack capacity remain at the centre of decision making and are fully safeguarded.”6 The Mental Capacity Act (2005) offers assistance regarding ‘capacity’. The Act applies to all aged 16 and above and to those with learning disability, dementia, brain injury, autism and mental health issues.

In this assignment I will be discussing Adult Nursing and Mental Health Nursing and issues regarding consent. Consent is important within all fields of nursing as it is essential to conduct any medical procedures. The Nursing and Midwifery Council Code of Conduct (NMC,2008) states that all healthcare professionals must presume that all patients have the mental capacity to accept or deny medical treatments after being given all information which may be needed. However there may be some instances where consent cannot be obtained. An example of this is if the patient is in a medical emergency and may be unconscious or if the patient lacks the mental capacity to make a knowledgeable choice. In this situation treatment would be

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

One of the biggest argument concerning this case and others like it, is that these patients, considering their mental conditions, could not actually have given informed (i.e., sane) consent because the request itself is considered “wrong” by society’s standards.

It is essential to have knowledge of the previous case which was Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1. Rogers became distressed with the forced consumption of Haldol, an antipsychotic medication, causing to set herself on fire in order to be transferred to a medical hospital. On April 27, 1975, Rogers, along with six other patients who were also medicated against their will, initiated lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against officials and staff of the May and Austin Units of the BSH. Plaintiffs were all present or were previous mental patients and were all administered with drugs forcefully. In this case, the Plaintiff prevailed.

In our day today lives we make complex decisions, continually weighing up the risks and benefits of our actions. However in the hospital environment, the Doctor knows best attitude has prevailed for many years, patients deemed unable to be involved in decisions regarding treatment. Development in law relating to consent has been slow, based on paternalistic approach and therapeutic privilege to decide treatment choice for patients. Whilst health care practice moved towards informed consent, the law lagged behind. In 2015 informed consent has finally been recognised in Law. The author will describe the changing attitude in the law of consent from 1950’s to present day and how these changes affected nurses duty to obtain consent from patients

Extraordinary treatments can only be determined or administered with Rogers authority, and these include intrusive, limiting or risky treatments. One of these is the administration of antipsychotic medications. The court considers two factors before granting a Rogers guardianship. Not only must the person who needs the medication be determined unable to give informed consent, the court must also consider whether the person would choose the treatment if he or she had the

This situation is definitely linked to the term competence. Competence is basically the ability to deliver decisions about medical interventions. According to Vaughn, people who are incompetent in this sense cannot give their informed consent (Vaughn, 2013, P. 181). I agree with this because if my sister has Paranoid Schizophrenia she cannot give her informed consent when it comes to her health because she is not in the right state of mind to do so. according to an article I found in the Huffington Post mentally ill patients are like children, and they are not competent enough to make decisions for themselves, and they have to second guess all their decisions.

55). Ensuring duty of care to a patient requires the paramedic to take reasonable care and skill in providing a patient with advice and treatment (Curtis & Ramsden, 2015, p. 55) when there is a foreseeable risk of harm to another (Townsend & Luck, 2013, p. 55). Furthermore, when treating patients, such as the one in question, the four principles of bioethics must be adhered too. Applying the four principals allows paramedics to weigh up the available choices, to decide which action best conforms to each principal. Curtis and Ramsden (2015) recognise the four principles to be, autonomy – respect for peoples decisions and values, beneficence – help people, non-maleficence – don’t harm people, and justice – treat like cases alike (p. 34). In addition, it is required that paramedics follow local codes of conduct regarding gaining valid consent (or valid refusal of treatment) from this patient. There are four elements of valid consent, these include voluntary, informed, relevant and capacity (Clinical Quality & Patient Safety Unit, QAS, 2016). Patients must give consent voluntarily, with no coercion and provided sufficient information (Townsend & Luck, 2013, p. 95) regarding the options for their treatment and the risks involved with refusing

There are many diverse type of reasoning that is related to the justification of the mandatory treatment or decision by the patient. It is discussed that the autonomous decision of refusal of health care ought to be respected as far as psychiatry is concerned. It is argued also that a patient who do not accept health care without clear reason should be given necessary treatment to ensure the best interest of the patient is served. There could also arise some of the people who are not competent, who may have their reasons on health care refusal; there decisions should be well consider.

I agree that nurses or doctors should have the right to override a refusal of treatment or to prevent a futile treatment that was requested because they should maximize the goods for the patients. If a doctor lied to a patient about a treatment in order to have the patient treated, which would entail a better life for the patient, I would support the use of paternalism in this case. I would rather the patient’s autonomy be overridden than have the patient suffer a result that he wouldn’t wish for. Perhaps the patient isn’t knowledgeable about this result or he’s mistrustful of the doctors, but regardless of the reason, if the ends justify the means, then I would agree to it. I believe this aligns with the views of act-utilitarianism because the result would maximize the goods for both parties even if it means breaking the principle of autonomy in specialized

Section 14 of the act describes the meaning of capacity to consent to be treated wherein a person can consent if he fully comprehends in general terms his illness, symptoms of illness, nature and purpose of the treatment, its benefits and risks, its alternatives and consequences. In this case, Hai is distracted by his delusions and hallucinations and could not be deemed capable to consent. Although he seems to understand what Mark was saying, he denies any history of mental illness and refuses to take medications. In addition, his claim of medical training was not true. His denial and belief of being medically trained could be indicators of his delusional episode.

It is important not to treat a medical condition without a written consent because if the

As a nurse we are trained to take all the necessary steps to save lives. However, there are situations that the people we are caring for tends to refuse treatment, and we have to respect their decision. According to the HDC (Health and Disability Commissioner) Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights Regulation 2004, every citizen has the right to make an informed choice and give informed consent. Services like medication can only be provided if the consumer gives an informed consent. In regards to the situation I have experienced in the facility, the patient has the right to refuse to take the Warfarin. Even if this poses a risk to his health the members of the health care team has to respect his decision.

“Legal standards for decision-making capacity for consent to treatment vary somewhat across jurisdictions, but generally they embody the abilities to communicate a choice, to understand the relevant information, to appreciate the medical consequences of the situation, and to reason about treatment choices” (Appelbaum, 2007).