Law Talk Week 3

LawTalk Week 3

Scenariofor Post 1

Ms.Fusal’s case is similar to the Matter of Dubreuil case. In the sameargument that was given by the hospital to the court, Ms. Fusal hasgreat responsibility of taking care of her three children who are allminors. Given that she has neither parents nor siblings, her childrenare exposed to abandonment if their mother dies. It is the hospitalsresponsibility to uphold the interest of the state and the helplesschildren of Ms. Fusal by ensuring that she receives treatment andgets well. Although her religious beliefs do not permit her toreceive a blood transfusion, her religious rights in this caseoverride the interest of her children. The burden that Ms. Fusalwould leave to the state in taking care of her children surpassesthese rights. The hospital attorney should be able to convince thecourt as in the case of the Matter of Dubreuil case to have Ms. Fusalreceive a transfusion to save her life for the sake of her children.

Scenariofor Post 2

TheUnited States Law allows for the right to consent. The hospital mustprovide autonomy of the patient in receiving treatment. Autonomy isone of the ethical principles that are required for consent. As such,the hospital is violating Ms. Fusal’s right to autonomy.

Thelaw however regulates autonomy under various circumstances includingthrough Mental Capacity Act, Mental Health Act and Public Health Act.In Ms. Fusal’s case, none of these cases apply. She is of soundmind, she is not suffering from a communicable disease or her diseaseis not a matter of public health. She is an adult who is able to makeinformed consent hence the hospital is baselessly denying Ms. Fusalher right of autonomy.

Inaddition, the state provides for the patients right to exercise theirreligious beliefs even in making decisions on their health. Herreligion does not allow a transfusion, and any other argumentpresented by the hospital such as her responsibility to her childrenwho are minors does not hold water.

Scenariofor Post 3

Myopinion agrees with most of my classmate’s argument. There is needto overlook Ms. Fusal’s rights to autonomy and her religiousbeliefs for the sake of her three minor children. Her last bornchild, who is barely 2 months old, needs a mother to nurse her. Ms.Fusal does not have a close relative neither has anyone showninterest to take over her children in case of her demise, unlike inthe Matter of Dubreuil case. As such, I support the hospitalsdecision to override her decision.

Asargued by Tabitha in her response to this situation, the hospitaldeems it ethical to continue treating Ms. Fusal against her wish. Sheargues that, considering her autonomy on religious grounds will leadto her demise, thus leaving her three children as orphans. Based onthis argument, majority of posts consider the greater issue, theinterest of the three minors, over their mother’s autonomy onreligious bases. This is what is ethically and morally acceptable.

Reference

AbibaMA (2000) Examining consent within the patient-doctor-relationship.Journalof Medical Ethics 26,183-87.

Pozgar,G. (2012). LegalAspects of Health Care Administration.(11th ED). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Pozgar,G. D., MBA, C., &amp Pozgar, G. D. (2012). Legaland ethical issues for health professionals.Jones &amp Bartlett Publishers.