Chapter 3 vaugh

kshinsky's version from 2017-11-13 19:02


Question Answer
pinciples of beneficence and autonomyclash and cultures diverge
p of autself determination "autonomous person should be allowed to exert their capacity for self determination"
paternalismoverriding of persons choices for his own good
med was paternalistichistorically (hippocrates), but not now
minimal restraint and great benefitit is ok
maximal restraint and low benefitnot ok
refusing treatmentis it ever morally justified to go against a patients will
until late 1980srefusals not allowed, now they are, even if they are life threatening
advance directives keep autonomy even if currently in a comaprior intentions
1944 supreme courtreligious beliefs: parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow they are make martyrs of their children
conclusionif adolescents are not competent adults (drs and rns) should step in to protect their welfare
futile tmtdrs not obligated to provide tmt if inconsistent with reasonable standards of medical practice
worst case is "sanctity of human life" must keep body alive at all costs BUT no sense to treat body when person no longer exists
Bouviaright to refuse tmt is basic and fundamental, in the absence of informed consent, tmt is actionable battery. intentions are irrelevant
bouvia vs. supreme courtshifted moral and legal scales from dr beneficence to pt aut
applying moral theories: act utalitariansimok to lie
applying moral theories: rule utalitarianismlong term erodes trust
js millwrong to interfere w/ persons liberty except to prevent harm to others
kantrespect for aut, cant treat pts as a mean to an end
medical futitlitywrong to make dr do wrong
natural lawright to refuse "extraordinary" tmt