Esther K. created her living will while she was still mentally capable of doing so for a reason. This means that Esther K. anticipated what was to come and wanted to make it clear what were her wishes were. It’s difficult to specifically define what “extraordinary measures” were to be interpreted as in the will. To list every possible scenario can be virtually impossible to do. A living will can generally state that any means of prolonging life is not desired, or can go as far as specifically stating chemotherapy, respirators etc. are not desired. In the physician’s defense, the patient may not have anticipated the amputation and may have consented to it prior to her diagnosis. On the other hand, if the amputation was questionable as an “extraordinary measure” or “aggressive treatment”, the family should have been consulted prior to the surgery being suggested to the patient since she was in a confused state at the time. The family has a right to be upset since the Esther K. knew a time would come that she would not be able to the “right” decisions, which is why she created the living will to begin with.
1. A living will should declare which specific types of treatment are acceptable and which are not and for which conditions the will is valid for. The living will should be very specific legally and ethically, the family should be aware of what is in the will while the creator is still in good health and competent. 2. The cancer and the gangrene were two separate conditions. Our group feels that this wasn’t an “extraordinary measure” to prolong her life. The will does not coincide with the diabetes but only relates to the pancreatic cancer. The patient specified that extraordinary measures as chemo, respirators, resuscitation; amputation is not any of those items. Perhaps if the nurse would have spoke up sooner and made it known that the comment was made by the patient about her being scared of losing her spot in the hospital. 3. The family should not have any weight on the decision because the patient was competent, she verbally told the doctor that she wanted the amputation. She did not have a proxy and since she was still competent still.
Group Blog:
ReplyDeleteEsther K. created her living will while she was still mentally capable of doing so for a reason. This means that Esther K. anticipated what was to come and wanted to make it clear what were her wishes were. It’s difficult to specifically define what “extraordinary measures” were to be interpreted as in the will. To list every possible scenario can be virtually impossible to do. A living will can generally state that any means of prolonging life is not desired, or can go as far as specifically stating chemotherapy, respirators etc. are not desired. In the physician’s defense, the patient may not have anticipated the amputation and may have consented to it prior to her diagnosis. On the other hand, if the amputation was questionable as an “extraordinary measure” or “aggressive treatment”, the family should have been consulted prior to the surgery being suggested to the patient since she was in a confused state at the time. The family has a right to be upset since the Esther K. knew a time would come that she would not be able to the “right” decisions, which is why she created the living will to begin with.
1. A living will should declare which specific types of treatment are acceptable and which are not and for which conditions the will is valid for. The living will should be very specific legally and ethically, the family should be aware of what is in the will while the creator is still in good health and competent.
ReplyDelete2. The cancer and the gangrene were two separate conditions. Our group feels that this wasn’t an “extraordinary measure” to prolong her life. The will does not coincide with the diabetes but only relates to the pancreatic cancer. The patient specified that extraordinary measures as chemo, respirators, resuscitation; amputation is not any of those items. Perhaps if the nurse would have spoke up sooner and made it known that the comment was made by the patient about her being scared of losing her spot in the hospital.
3. The family should not have any weight on the decision because the patient was competent, she verbally told the doctor that she wanted the amputation. She did not have a proxy and since she was still competent still.