Ethical & Legal Case Study Evaluation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Ethical & Legal Evaluation - model Study Example on that point are to a fault chances of civil liability ensuing (Guido, G. 2009). Though The Human Rights Act 1998 identifies a reform to life in Article 2. A court ruling, NHS think A v M NHS Trust B v H 2001, affirmed that the patients right to allowingly refuse treatment, and whether it was in the patients best interests to forgo treatment were the two key factors determine whether treatment will be foregone. The patients right to intentionally refuse treatment, was recognized as being some(prenominal) legal and not the same as suicide, this was despite the fact that the refusal would ultimately lead to the patients death (Chiarella 2006). Legality of Janets Actions Janets actions can be termed as being illegal because, concord to NHS guidelines on the discontinuation of (LSMT), in occasion a disagreement amongst the team members, the team should sit low-spirited and consider the basis of the disagreement and try to obtain an opinion from a medical professional who happens to be working in a discipline that is the same as the disagreeing member. This was clearly not followed in the shift of Dr. Johnsons disagreement with the other attending nurses (Guido, G. 2009). Janet the nurse did not consult with all the staff include in the patients care when she made the decision to discontinue the supply of Mrs. Jordans noradrenaline. This was in direct contravention of a checklist used in the ruling by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Case Re B (an adult refusal of medical treatment) 2002 2 All ER 449. One of the requirements in the checklist was that at that place must be adequate consultation surrounded by all the staff involved before a decision is made (McIlwraith &Madden 2006). Ethical Features Mrs. Jordan was undergoing palliative chemotherapy, for pancreatic adenocarcinoma that was in its advanced peak and there were not chances that she would recover. Her quality of life was severely hampered and her family understood this and wanted the Life Sustaining Medical discussion to be discontinued. Their intentions are seen to be inline with the doctrine of double effect (Chirella 2006) Ethicality of Janets Actions Janets actions can be viewed as being ethical as supported by a court ruling, Re Conroy 1985 that upheld that a patient declining life-sustaining treatment could not be viewed as an attempt to commit suicide. The action only if allows a disease to follow its natural course. If the patient dies, it could not be termed as a self-inflicted dent but it would be considered to be the result of the underlying disease. She was not responsible for the death (Charella 2006). Legally noteworthy Events in the Alternate Version of the Case Scenario In the second Scenario, there was sufficient consultation between the medical staff attending to Mrs. Jordan and her family before Janet was instructed to withdraw the LSMT. Hence this is perfectly legal in amity with the Ministry of Heal th Guidelines (Ministry of Health). The medical professionals and members of the family were also in agreement as opposed to the first scenario where their views were divergent. Dr. Jackson also complied with Mrs. Jordans Advanced Care Directive which clearly stated that she did not want to receive LSMT. This is in compliance with the law as opposed to the