Apart from the difficulty of the decision, today, many individuals consider placing their relative or a loved one into a long-term care facility due to the inability or the lack of time to provide sufficient support. Thus, it is expected that the actions of the medical personnel should comply with the current legislation while treating a patient with respect and care. Nonetheless, despite a continuous dispute, the rights of the patients are often violated both by his/her relatives and medical workers.
Consequently, the primary goal of the paper is to discover the freedoms of a patient, specifically, the right to die with the help of a controversial and confusing case of Mrs. Greene. The matter will be addressed from a legal perspective, as it will assist in understanding the problem, determining possible repercussions to failure to comply with the patient’s desire to die, and suggesting facts and steps to be considered and taken to resolve this issue.
Description of the Case
According to the case, David Greene placed Mrs. Greene in the long-term care facility, as he had no time to take care of herself, and having a sitter was not effective (Singh, 2016). Despite the professional medical assistance provided, Mrs. Greene experienced a weight loss and did not show interest in food while leaving most of the meal on her plate (Singh, 2016). As for Mr. Greene, initially, he visited his mother regularly, but after a certain period, nurses witnessed a violent and severe dispute. Mr. Greene was raising his voice and expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the behavior of his mother. After that, the nurses and administration of the hospital received a note that Mrs. Greene had a desire to die, and the medical personnel had to comply with her wish (Singh, 2016).
Otherwise, Mr. Greene would file a lawsuit. Apart from these accusations, the administration of the long-term healthcare facility and nurses expressed high concerns with the case, as Mrs. Greene was nervous and agitated after the visits of her son (Singh, 2016). This matter was the central ethical issue, as medical personnel had to determine the autonomy of Mrs. Greene decision while disregarding it might lead to lawsuits with Mr. Greene.
In this instance, the critical dilemma is the fact whether it is reasonable and lawful to disregard the claims and accusations of Mr. Greene or not. To determine the rightfulness of the decision, it is essential to understand the legal framework of this situation. It remains apparent that helping a patient die often refers to assisted suicide, while euthanasia is only legal in some parts of the country. Thus, this procedure was developed to avoid lawsuits with relatives and satisfy the needs of patients, who (Anderson, 2015). It is used to decrease both mental and physical suffering. Nonetheless, euthanasia and helping patients kill themselves are not always the right solutions since, according to the physicians’ ethics, protecting patients and their health and helping them overcome depression have to be viewed as a priority (Anderson, 2015).
Consequently, satisfying the need of Mrs. Greene may violate the principles of this code, and her medical condition and other facts have to be carefully considered before making a decision. Based on the clarifications mentioned above, it could be said that the problem can be reformulated as “Should the rights of Mrs. Greene and claims of Mr. Greene be satisfied, or should doctors focus on protecting the rights of the patient?”.
Potential Repercussions for Failure to Comply with the Needs of the Patient
As it was mentioned earlier, the case of helping patients die is rather complicated and controversial. On the one hand, it complies to the wish of the patient, but on the other side, it violates the ethics and laws. Not satisfying the request may also lead to a plethora of consequences. For example, refusing patients’ desire does not usually change the condition of the patient, and the majority of them tend to cherish their want to die while this aspect has a negative impact on the mental and physical health of the patients (Pasman, Willens, & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, 2013). It could be said that any potential consequence is related to the fact that the patients have an equal right to live or die (Annadurai, Danasekaran, & Mani, 2014).
Consequently, disregarding the patient’s request may lead to legal problems and question the ability of the medical institution to respect equality and offer identical opportunities to everyone. However, satisfying the need for euthanasia may also be associated with adverse consequences since the physicians can be accused in assisted suicide. Discovering all aspects of this case can help avoid the negative situations described previously.
Apart from the repercussions mentioned above, it could be said that in the context of this case, the rights, freedoms, and health of Mrs. Greene has to be protected since it is unclear whether the decision is fully hers. Simultaneously, another reason pertains to the fact that assisting the patient in death may also be related to a plethora of negative consequences, including accusation in assisted suicide and the inability to cherish the values of freedom and equality (Anderson, 2015). Overall, these factors clearly state that one cannot underestimate the significance of the investigation, as it will help discover the need to protect the rights of Mrs. Greene.
Discussing the Main issues to be Considered
Based on the information collected above, it could be said that it is reasonable to review this case profoundly, as any controversies or questionable matters have to be diminished to avoid different legal issues. As a part of the committee, I suggest that in the first place, it is essential to assess both the mental and physical condition of the patient.
Alternatively, organizing different psychological sessions and having a conversation with Mrs. Greene can help understand whether it is truly her decision or it is driven by her medical condition and pressured by her son. Simultaneously, this procedure can help provide a patient with the sufficient support, avoid death, and assess her sanity and legal capacity (Anderson, 2015). This matter could be considered as the next step, as it may help avoid the development of the situation in a negative direction while prioritizing the code of ethics and protecting one’s life.
Evaluating opinions of the nurses and other witnesses may also unveil some important insights such as the current relationship with the son since this aspect plays a defining role in this case. A combination of these factors along with a legal framework, medical records, rationale for Mr. Greene’s claims, and doctor’s ethics have to be taken into account when making a final decision. It could be said that the administration of the medical facility has to disregard the legal proficiency of Mr. Greene as one of the major threats and investigate this case in detail, as, making a wrongful decision may not only damage a reputation of the company but also question the medical proficiency of its employees.
References
Anderson, R. (2015). Always care, never kill: How physician-assisted suicide endangers the weak, corrupts medicine, compromises the family, and violates human dignity and equality. Backgrounder, 3004(1), 1-22.
Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R., & Mani, J. (2014). Euthanasia: Right to die with dignity. Journal of Primary Medicine and Primary Care, 3(4), 477-478.
Pasman, H., Willens, D., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. (2013). What happens after a request for euthanasia is refused? Qualitative interviews with patients, relatives, and physicians. Patient Education and Counseling, 92(3), 313-318.
Singh, D. (2016). Effective management of long-term healthcare facilities. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC.