- HS 101 M2 Assignment Federal and State Healthcare Regulations
Exploring End-of-Life Issues and Assisted Reproduction
In this assignment, we will skip into two significant case studies, Terri Schiavo and Angela Carder, to examine various aspects of end-of-life care and advance directives. Also, we will investigate the significant assisted reproduction methods and the associated legal and ethical issues.
Comparison of Advance Directives
Advance directives, particularly living wills and Don’t Resuscitate (DNR) orders, are crucial for end-of-life care planning. They empower individuals to specify their clinical benefits preferences in advance, especially regarding life-sustaining treatments and interventions in case of incapacitation. For instance, a living will can be used to express a desire to refuse mechanical ventilation or fake nourishment and hydration in case of terminal illness or permanent unconsciousness. This knowledge empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their future care.
Key Differences in End-of-Life Directives
Then again, a DNR request instructs clinical benefits providers not to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in case of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest. This directive is routinely finished when an individual does not wish to go through aggressive resuscitative measures or when CPR would be purposeless based on the individual’s illness and prognosis.
For instance, a patient with an advanced life-threatening turn of events and an unfortunate prognosis could choose to have a DNR request set up to stay away from unnecessary suffering and prolong life through CPR (Cook et al., 2021). While both living wills and DNR orders interface with end-of-life care and treatment preferences, they address various aspects of clinical intervention and decision-making, with the former providing a more basic course on treatment preferences and the last decision specifically focusing on resuscitative measures.
Comparison of Proxy Decision Makers
In clinical benefits decision-making, full legal power (POA) and clinical consideration proxies are instrumental in ensuring that individuals’ clinical preferences are respected when they can’t convey their wishes (Zietlow et al., 2022).
A legal power grants an individual, known as the specialist or legal counselor, the legal capacity to go with choices for another person, suggested as the principal. This authority can encompass many legal and financial matters, enabling the specialist to act in the principal’s best interests. For instance, a person could designate their spouse as their legal position to deal with their financial affairs in case they become incapacitated because of illness or injury.
Clinical Proxy vs. POA
In contrast, a clinical consideration proxy, also known as a strong legal master for clinical benefits, explicitly empowers an individual to settle on clinical choices for the patient when they can’t do so. For instance, a person could appoint a trusted friend or relative as their clinical benefits proxy to settle on conclusions about their clinical treatment in case they are incapacitated and unsuitable to convey their preferences. While POA and clinical consideration proxies involve delegating decision-making positions to another individual, they change in scope and focus, with POA encompassing more prominent legal and financial matters and clinical consideration proxies specifically addressing clinical decision-making.
Understanding the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) provides a legal structure for organ gift and transplantation, aiming to work with the gift of organs and tissues for life-saving transplantation procedures (Ellul and Galea, 2021). Enacted in various forms across states, the UAGA governs the gift process, ensuring that individuals have the fantastic entrance to give their organs and tissues for transplantation, research, or instructive purposes.
HS 101 M2 Assignment Federal and State Healthcare Regulations
For instance, the UAGA establishes procedures for individuals to make anatomical gifts through benefactor registries, driver’s license designations, or composed documentation such as wills or advance directives. Furthermore, the UAGA outlines the rights and responsibilities of donors, recipients, and clinical consideration professionals involved in the organ gift process, promoting transparency, informed consent, and fair assignment of given organs.
Advance Directive for Terri Schiavo
Terri Schiavo’s case underscored the significance of advance directives in guiding end-of-life care decisions (Ragone and Vimercati, 2020). A strong legal master for clinical benefits and a living will have given clear instructions regarding Schiavo’s treatment preferences, potentially averting the protracted legal battles over her consideration.
Withholding vs. Withdrawing Treatment
Withholding treatment involves refraining from initiating specific clinical interventions while withdrawing treatment, which entails discontinuing ongoing clinical interventions. In Terri Schiavo’s case, the decision to take out life-sustaining treatment — specifically, the expulsion of her feeding tube — was made after extensive legal and ethical consultation.
Potential Tort in Angela Carder’s Case
In Angela Carder’s case, the aggressive clinical intervention against her wishes and clinical direction could potentially constitute an infringement of informed consent, a form of battery. By performing a cesarean section without Carder’s informed consent, clinical benefits providers might have committed a tort of battery. This information is crucial for healthcare professionals and policymakers to understand the legal implications of their actions.
Ethical Violations in Angela Carder’s Case
Angela Carder’s case was marred by several ethical violations, including breaches of patient independence, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. By prioritizing fetal interests over Carder’s independence and well-being, clinical benefits providers disregarded key ethical principles. The lack of transparency and communication regarding Carder’s treatment plan further exacerbated ethical concerns. This highlights the importance of upholding ethical principles in healthcare and improving patient-provider communication.
Assisted Reproduction Methods
Assisted reproduction encompasses various techniques pointed toward helping individuals or couples accomplish pregnancy when typical origination is challenging or impractical. Several significant methods of assisted reproduction exist, each with its own legal and ethical considerations.
In Vitro Fertilization
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is perhaps one of the most outstanding and used assisted conceptive innovations. In IVF, eggs are surgically recovered from the ovaries and treated with sperm in a lab setting. The resulting embryos are then transferred to the uterus, which can be installed and formed into a pregnancy (von Schondorf-Gleicher et al., 2022).
Legal and ethical issues surrounding IVF include concerns about the disposition of unused embryos. When a more prominent number of embryos are made than are run-of-the-mill for ensured transfer, decisions must be made regarding the storage, gift, or disposal of these embryos. This raises questions about the status and rights of embryos, as well as issues of consent and independence for individuals undergoing IVF treatment.
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is a procedure used to treat eggs by injecting a single sperm straightforwardly into the egg cytoplasm. ICSI is often used in cases of male factor infertility or when previous attempts at customary IVF have fizzled. One legal and ethical concern associated with ICSI is the potential for the transmission of innate disorders.
In cases where male infertility is because of hereditary abnormalities, there is a risk of passing these disorders on to offspring considered through ICSI (Smith et al., 2021). This raises questions about the responsibility of clinical benefits providers to counsel patients about hereditary risks and the implications for individuals later on.
Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer
Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) involves transferring unfertilized eggs and sperm into the fallopian tubes, where fertilization occurs ordinarily. GIFT is less consistently used than IVF, and ICSI, in any case, might be cherished by individuals who wish to consider a more ordinary process. A legal and ethical issue surrounding GIFT is the potential for numerous gestations and associated risks (Maheswari et al., 2023).
Because GIFT involves the transfer of numerous eggs and sperm into the fallopian tubes, there is a higher probability of conceiving twins or higher-request multiples contrasted with other assisted reproduction methods. This raises concerns about the well-being risks associated with various pregnancies, including preterm birth, low birth weight, and maternal complications, as well as the ethical considerations of selective decrease or the executives of various pregnancies.
Legal and Ethical Issues in Assisted Reproduction
Legal and ethical issues surrounding assisted reproduction include concerns about the commodification of gametes and embryos, unbiased access to regenerative technologies, and the rights of offspring imagined through assisted reproduction to access information about their innate inheritance. Furthermore, questions regarding assisted conceptive technologies’ guidelines and the potential risks of these procedures raise complex legal and ethical considerations.
Conclusion
End-of-life care and assisted reproduction present complex legal and ethical challenges. By examining case studies like Terri Schiavo and Angela Carder, we gain insight into the complexities of advance consideration planning and regenerative clinical benefits decision-making. Also, understanding the legal and ethical implications is essential for clinical benefits providers, policymakers, and individuals navigating end-of-life care and conceptive choices. Explore our assessment HS 111 M1 Assessment Components of a Medical Term for complete information about this class.
References
Biewald, M. A. (2020). Advance Care Planning for Older Adults. In A. Chun (Ed.), Geriatric Practice: A Competency Based Approach to Caring for Older Adults (pp. 359–369). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19625-7_29
Cook, J., Case, A., Appy, S., Lupton, J., & Schmidt, T. A. (2021). Death, dying, and end-of-life issues. In Emergency Medical Services (pp. 525–540). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119756279.ch65
Ellul, B., & Galea, G. (2021). Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Cell and Tissue Banking. In G. Galea, M. Turner, & S. Zahra (Eds.), Essentials of Tissue and Cells Banking (pp. 241–271). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71621-9_14
Maheshwari, P., Gupta, V., Neelam, D. K., Yadav, M., Devki, Raj, P., & Rahi, R. K. (2023). A Review on Role of Assisted Reproductive Technology (IVF) in Modern Society: Hope, Opportunity, and Ethics. Journal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences, 10(2S), Article 2S.
Ragone, G., & Vimercati, B. (2020). Neuroscience and End-of-Life Decisions: What Kind of Coexistence? In A. D’Aloia & M. C. Errigo (Eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives (pp. 339–370). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38840-9_17
Smith, M. B., Ho, J. R., Cortessis, V., Chen, I. J., Bendikson, K. A., Paulson, R. J., McGinnis, L. K., & Ahmady, A. (2021). What is the optimal timing of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) after EGG retrieval? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 38(8), 2151–2156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02216-y
von Schondorf-Gleicher, A., Mochizuki, L., Orvieto, R., Patrizio, P., Caplan, A. S., & Gleicher, N. (2022). Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 39(3), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02439-7
Zietlow, K., Dubin, L., Battles, A., & Vitale, C. (2022). Guardianship: A medicolegal review for clinicians. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 70(11), 3070–3079. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17797