This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Wife

Jeremy suffered a stroke

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Jeremy suffered a stroke

Jeremy suffered a stroke and has been readmitted to the hospital. He cannot swallow food and fluids, so the hospital is considering other ways of feeding him.  A nasogastric tube has been passed, and the hospital staff is considering inserting a PEG. His son is supporting this decision. However, Jeremy indicates through signals that he wants to feed orally.

Using the PEG creates an ethical dilemma because Jeremy had written an advanced decision ten years ago, indicating that he did not want any unnecessary interventions in case he became a “cabbage.” The autonomy of a patient should be respected. Using a PEG would be going against the autonomy and informed consent of Jeremy.

Given that this relates to Jeremy, it would be appropriate to consider Jeremy’s decision. According to the Human Rights ACT 1998 Article 2, everyone has a Right to Life (Human Rights Commission). Therefore, the hospital administration must protect Jeremy’s life by using a PEG to promote safe feeding. The Mental Health Act, 2005, protects those who have limited capacity to make decisions and provides avenues for them to make as many decisions as they can autonomously (Johnston & Liddle).  The Act states that in helping to make decisions for incapacitated persons, the best interests for the person should be prioritized. In determining best interests, the past and presents the wishes of the person must be considered (Johnston & Liddle). However, these interests should be weighed against the best clinical opinions. Jeremy’s consent should be sought if he has the capacity to communicate. According to the case, he wants to be fed orally and not via the tubes. Using the PEG will be going against his consent.

The beneficence principle could be used to solve this dilemma. Beneficence is doing good to others (Kinsinger). Health professionals must do that which is good and morally right for the patient, minimizing harm, and promoting life. In this case, using a PEG would be a good decision as compared to not using it, consequently harming Jeremy. HRA (1998) states that everyone has a Right to Life; using PEG will preserve Jeremy’s life.  HRA (1998), Article 2 will help resolve the ethical dilemma, too; right to life should not be violated under any circumstances. Under the Mental Health Act 2005, best interests should be considered with references to the clinical opinion given that Jeremy’s autonomy goes against the HRA 1998. Therefore, using s PEG would be in the best interests of Jeremy.

This is a grey area, but given the ethical and legal considerations, a PEG should be inserted. According to the NMC (2018) Code, health professionals should act in the best interests of their patients at all times. This includes respecting the person’s right to refuse treatment. However, autonomy should not override the preservation of life and act with the best available evidence. In Jeremy’s case, the best available evidence indicated that a PEG would save his life despite his initial decision ten years ago; therefore, a PEG should be used in line with best interests, beneficence, and HRA (1998), Article 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Works cited

Johnston, Carolyn, and Jane Liddle. “The Mental Capacity Act 2005: a new framework for

healthcare decision making.” Journal of medical ethics vol. 33,2 (2007): 94-7. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016972

Kinsinger, Frank Stuart. “Beneficence and the professional’s moral imperative.” Journal of

chiropractic humanities vol. 16,1 (2009): 44-6. doi:10.1016/j.echu.2010.02.006

Human Rights Commission. Article 2: Right to Life

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life

Nursing & Midwifery Council. The Code (2018)

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask