I believe that the decisions made on Ronald's behalf are morally unjust. While it is true that Ronald suffers from risk with his occasional spells with arteriosclerosis, he is still competent enough to make his own decisions and willing to live on his own, As long as his neighbor and his housekeeper are willing to keep a distant eye on him, I believe Ronald deserves to live the last years of his life in the comfort of his home. The fact that medical professionals had to sedate him in order to receive an answer about his housing that was satisfactory to his children is disgraceful. The paternalistic limitations set on Ronald are degrading and morally reprehensible, fitting in with the wide stereotype of the elderly to today's society: all elderly who suffer from mild health issues are a danger to themselves, and cannot make decisions on their own.
Many of the actions suggested in this article are legally mandated to protect the rights of the patient. First in this situation is the fact that he is being admitted to a nursing home without his consent. Ronald can not legally be admitted to the nursing home, considering his lack of consent, except for in two scenarios: if he was involuntarily admitted for his own safety or if guardianship was given to one of his children. Because he is competent at periods he could only be admitted in his periods of confusion. Considering that he is fully competent at times and his children do not have guardianship he could not be admitted without his consent. I believe that these laws serve to protect the rights of the patient to basic freedom.
The use of sedation to prevent the objection of the patient is morally reprehensible in this situation. Sedation for the purpose of preventing patient movement is considered a restraint and significantly infringes on the basic freedoms of the patient. Because the patient does not pose a harm to himself or others it is unjust to restrict his freedoms.
I believe that the health-care professionals and Ronald X's children are making an unjustified leap from his occasional risk-running behavior to the conclusion that he lacks sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life, because if the majority of the time he is not "confused" he should be able to make his own decisions without being forced into compliance with sedation. The fact that he has multiple people looking out for him also leads me to believe that if he chooses to live outside of a nursing home, that he understands the risks; but also realized that their are people watching him. I believe this to also be morally reprehensible in this case. Doctor's have no right to sedate anyone into compliance; especially when the patient is able to make appropriate decisions on their own. It is against the patients basic rights to do this.
In this situation, I think that the decisions made in Ronald X's case were not made by the right means. His children and the health-care professionals made this decision rather quickly without any consideration to what Ronald wanted. Instead they should have taken more time and used other sources, such as a social worker, to assess the situation and decide what action would be best. It seems as though they did not even consider what other options there may be for Ronald that would have been satisfactory for both him and his children.
I think the paternal limitations set on Ronald's liberty are morally permissible. I do not think that this situation was handled in the correct way, but there needed to be something done because Ronald was a harm to himself and can even put other people in danger. However, the health-care professionals should have gone about this in a different way. We are also unaware of the reason for his broken leg, which could be a direct result of this state of confusion that he experiences. Patient safety is always the first priority, even in this situation.
1. I agree with Hailey that the health-care professionals and Ronald X's children are making an unjustified leap. Since this behavior is only occasional, Ronald X should have made his own decision on what he wanted with professional assistance. Ronald X should not have been sedated because it was simply a way of manipulating him into doing what everyone else wanted for him and restricting his freedoms.
2.This paternalistic limitation was morally reprehensible. Ronald X was still capable of making his own decisions but was sedated anyway. His freedoms were restricted and the physician made an ethically and morally wrong decision.
1. I believe that Ronalds kids and the healthcare professionals are making an unjustified leap. I believe that Ronald should not have decisions made for him unless he is completely incompetent all the time. He has a right to live the rest of his life at his home as long as he understands the risks and is willing to accept them.
2. I believe that this paternalistic limitation set on Ronalds liberty are morally reprehensible because he was able to make the decision and instead they made it for him and took action while he was not able to object.
1. It is easy to see why Ronald's children would prefer that he enter a nursing home, but his arteriosclerosis condition mainly causes risks to Ronald and not to the general population. Because of this, Ronald should be allowed to make his own decisions when he is conscious and aware of the possible issues that could arise from living alone. In order to make the situation best for both parties, Robert's children could look into some form of home health care, having a nurse come to Robert's house a specified number of days a week to make sure that he is living sufficiently. If/when the nurse acknowledges that the condition has turned south, then Robert and his children could reassess the entire living situation.
2. The paternal limitations set on Ronald's liberty are morally permissible, meaning they are acceptable but there could have been a more ideal set of events. In our textbook, "threat of harm" is used to define a situation when paternalism is necessary, and I definitely think Ronald is a threat to himself. The case didn't specify any instance where he had endangered other people, but I'm sure it is realistic problem as well. While this is all reasonable, the doctors took extreme action when choosing to sedate Ronald in order for him to comply with their wishes.
I agree that this is a n unjustified leap. I think that the doctor and family are taking away his rights simply because he is older with a condition. It is not right to not obey someone's wishes when they are aware because you don't think It right it is his decision whether or not to take the risk if he is willing then it is up to him. My question is if the family is concerned why don't they do more to visit and help care for him instead of putting him in a facility that he does not want to be in. I also think being in a home when he does not want to could case him some form of depression thus deterring his mental status faster than normal.
I agree with the others that the actions of the healthcare professionals are unjustified. Under no conditions should doctors sedate a patient to gain their compliance. This puts the patient in a state of mind that is insufficient to make important decisions. The limitations placed on Ronald's liberty are morally reprehensible. No person should be denied the right of liberty except for the punishment of serious crimes or if they are putting the safety of others in serious danger. This is not the case in this situation. Ronald is only bringing danger upon himself, and this danger is only present during his spells of confusion. If Ronald were belligerent or violent during his spells, it may be morally justifiable to deny him of his freedom.
Thank you for your contribution! This is beneficial for the most famours Dental Clinic in Dwarka Delhi. We always provide you with high-quality dental care while keeping your comfort in mind.
I believe that the decisions made on Ronald's behalf are morally unjust. While it is true that Ronald suffers from risk with his occasional spells with arteriosclerosis, he is still competent enough to make his own decisions and willing to live on his own, As long as his neighbor and his housekeeper are willing to keep a distant eye on him, I believe Ronald deserves to live the last years of his life in the comfort of his home. The fact that medical professionals had to sedate him in order to receive an answer about his housing that was satisfactory to his children is disgraceful. The paternalistic limitations set on Ronald are degrading and morally reprehensible, fitting in with the wide stereotype of the elderly to today's society: all elderly who suffer from mild health issues are a danger to themselves, and cannot make decisions on their own.
ReplyDeleteMany of the actions suggested in this article are legally mandated to protect the rights of the patient. First in this situation is the fact that he is being admitted to a nursing home without his consent. Ronald can not legally be admitted to the nursing home, considering his lack of consent, except for in two scenarios: if he was involuntarily admitted for his own safety or if guardianship was given to one of his children. Because he is competent at periods he could only be admitted in his periods of confusion. Considering that he is fully competent at times and his children do not have guardianship he could not be admitted without his consent. I believe that these laws serve to protect the rights of the patient to basic freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe use of sedation to prevent the objection of the patient is morally reprehensible in this situation. Sedation for the purpose of preventing patient movement is considered a restraint and significantly infringes on the basic freedoms of the patient. Because the patient does not pose a harm to himself or others it is unjust to restrict his freedoms.
I believe that the health-care professionals and Ronald X's children are making an unjustified leap from his occasional risk-running behavior to the conclusion that he lacks sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life, because if the majority of the time he is not "confused" he should be able to make his own decisions without being forced into compliance with sedation. The fact that he has multiple people looking out for him also leads me to believe that if he chooses to live outside of a nursing home, that he understands the risks; but also realized that their are people watching him.
ReplyDeleteI believe this to also be morally reprehensible in this case. Doctor's have no right to sedate anyone into compliance; especially when the patient is able to make appropriate decisions on their own. It is against the patients basic rights to do this.
In this situation, I think that the decisions made in Ronald X's case were not made by the right means. His children and the health-care professionals made this decision rather quickly without any consideration to what Ronald wanted. Instead they should have taken more time and used other sources, such as a social worker, to assess the situation and decide what action would be best. It seems as though they did not even consider what other options there may be for Ronald that would have been satisfactory for both him and his children.
ReplyDeleteI think the paternal limitations set on Ronald's liberty are morally permissible. I do not think that this situation was handled in the correct way, but there needed to be something done because Ronald was a harm to himself and can even put other people in danger. However, the health-care professionals should have gone about this in a different way. We are also unaware of the reason for his broken leg, which could be a direct result of this state of confusion that he experiences. Patient safety is always the first priority, even in this situation.
1. I agree with Hailey that the health-care professionals and Ronald X's children are making an unjustified leap. Since this behavior is only occasional, Ronald X should have made his own decision on what he wanted with professional assistance. Ronald X should not have been sedated because it was simply a way of manipulating him into doing what everyone else wanted for him and restricting his freedoms.
ReplyDelete2.This paternalistic limitation was morally reprehensible. Ronald X was still capable of making his own decisions but was sedated anyway. His freedoms were restricted and the physician made an ethically and morally wrong decision.
1. I believe that Ronalds kids and the healthcare professionals are making an unjustified leap. I believe that Ronald should not have decisions made for him unless he is completely incompetent all the time. He has a right to live the rest of his life at his home as long as he understands the risks and is willing to accept them.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that this paternalistic limitation set on Ronalds liberty are morally reprehensible because he was able to make the decision and instead they made it for him and took action while he was not able to object.
1. It is easy to see why Ronald's children would prefer that he enter a nursing home, but his arteriosclerosis condition mainly causes risks to Ronald and not to the general population. Because of this, Ronald should be allowed to make his own decisions when he is conscious and aware of the possible issues that could arise from living alone. In order to make the situation best for both parties, Robert's children could look into some form of home health care, having a nurse come to Robert's house a specified number of days a week to make sure that he is living sufficiently. If/when the nurse acknowledges that the condition has turned south, then Robert and his children could reassess the entire living situation.
ReplyDelete2. The paternal limitations set on Ronald's liberty are morally permissible, meaning they are acceptable but there could have been a more ideal set of events. In our textbook, "threat of harm" is used to define a situation when paternalism is necessary, and I definitely think Ronald is a threat to himself. The case didn't specify any instance where he had endangered other people, but I'm sure it is realistic problem as well. While this is all reasonable, the doctors took extreme action when choosing to sedate Ronald in order for him to comply with their wishes.
I agree that this is a n unjustified leap. I think that the doctor and family are taking away his rights simply because he is older with a condition. It is not right to not obey someone's wishes when they are aware because you don't think It right it is his decision whether or not to take the risk if he is willing then it is up to him. My question is if the family is concerned why don't they do more to visit and help care for him instead of putting him in a facility that he does not want to be in. I also think being in a home when he does not want to could case him some form of depression thus deterring his mental status faster than normal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others that the actions of the healthcare professionals are unjustified. Under no conditions should doctors sedate a patient to gain their compliance. This puts the patient in a state of mind that is insufficient to make important decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe limitations placed on Ronald's liberty are morally reprehensible. No person should be denied the right of liberty except for the punishment of serious crimes or if they are putting the safety of others in serious danger. This is not the case in this situation. Ronald is only bringing danger upon himself, and this danger is only present during his spells of confusion. If Ronald were belligerent or violent during his spells, it may be morally justifiable to deny him of his freedom.
Friendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in velachery
Thank you for your contribution! This is beneficial for the most famours Dental Clinic in Dwarka Delhi. We always provide you with high-quality dental care while keeping your comfort in mind.
ReplyDeleteBest Dentist in Dwarka Sec7
Best implantologist in dwarka