MHA6060 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION AND PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS
fewa46
MHA6060Week2DiscussionProjectInstructionsandLecture.docxMHA6060 Week 2 Lecture
Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas
While a number of legal and ethical issues are present in modern healthcare, there are some that are more commonly seen by administrators. In this lecture, we will take out some time to reflect on various ethical dilemmas or scenarios in which individuals may find it difficult to make decisions. Current healthcare ethics are impacted by previous events ranging from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to informed consent legislation to sequencing of the human genome. As a healthcare administrator, you may have a number of organizational policies, supported by enacted legislation, to support your decision in various cases. The cases you will most likely contend with include:
· Abortion: Termination of a pregnancy before a fetus is viable; the term viability is hotly debated between those who do and do not support the right to choose.
· Sterilization: Termination of the ability to have children via vasectomy or tubal ligation; voluntary sterilization poses some ethical concerns, but the real issues stem from efforts at eugenic sterilization.
· Artificial insemination: Process to impregnate a female in a manner other than sexual intercourse; ethical dilemmas, concern for the offspring, and risk of multiple births arise over the process itself.
· Surrogacy: Reproduction method where a woman agrees to give birth to a child that will be given to a contracted party; primary concerns are the exchange of a body for money and potential psychological impacts.
· Organ transplantation: Procedure to replace a failing organ with a viable organ from a donor; the National Organ Procurement Act of 1984 makes it illegal to buy or sell organs, but there can be ethical issues with donor families feeling pressured or perceptions of unfair selection processes.
Each of these scenarios presents unique challenges to healthcare administrators; however, guidance from organizational and legislative policies helps to remove some of these challenges. Following federal, state, and organizational regulations is a key aspect of the administrator position, and knowledge of such information is imperative to your success in healthcare organizations.
Explore More
Under subject areas, review the topic “Health.” Narrow your focus and review "60 Subcategories” for current legislation on aging, healthcare finance, family planning, coverage and access, technology, and more.
Review the below link to learn more about the current legislation on a variety of contemporary ethical dilemmas.
Bills and Resolutions opens in new window
Additional Materials
From your course textbook, Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, review the following chapter:
· Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas
From the South University Online Library, review the following articles:
· Moral Distress in Physicians and Nurses: Impact on Professional Quality of Life and Turnover
End-of-Life Dilemmas
While we have addressed some of the main legal and ethical scenarios that you are likely to face as a healthcare administrator, one deserves a bit more examination. End-of-life dilemmas include a myriad of different topic areas ranging from euthanasia to assisted suicide to advance directives.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is loosely defined as “mercy killing,” where individuals with deteriorating health and with no hope of improvement are provided with some relief. The primary area of contention is whether the patient is dying from his or her incurable disease and to offer, only to the dying patient, the option of euthanasia. What this means is that a patient with an incurable disease who is not dying should not have the option of euthanasia. Due to changing societal norms and minimal legislative support for or against euthanasia, the matter has become muddled and administrators often turn to whether the patient is of sound mind to make end-of-life decisions.
Physician-Assisted Suicide
Physician-assisted suicide requires a voluntary physician to aid patients in killing themselves. Perhaps the most famous name in physician-assisted suicide is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who developed a device to bring about death quickly and without pain. He assisted an Alzheimer’s disease patient to commit suicide and was subsequently charged with first-degree murder. Those charges were later dismissed as there were no federal laws deeming assisted suicide as illegal. As with euthanasia, there are shifting opinions regarding assisted suicide too. Further, the Supreme Court maintains that assisted suicide of terminally ill patients is a state decision.
Advance Directives
The Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 stipulates that patients have the right to make decisions about their healthcare, including treatment options and decisions that may need to be made in the future. Advance directive, also known as living wills or durable power of attorney, gives the patient a voice in his or her medical care should he or she becomes incapacitated at a later date. Such documents are written when the patient is sound and competent and detail his or her wishes for treatment should he or she becomes unable to communicate. This is a particularly important document to healthcare professionals as it allows them to provide appropriate intervention without interference from external parties.
There are a number of legal and ethical issues that you may come across if you pursue career in hospital administration. However, following the directives set forth by patients via living wills, for example, and adhering to state and federal regulations for end-of-life care ensure patient’s respect, death with dignity, and protection from legal and ethical wrongdoings.
Living Will
Review the following example of a living will (Pozgar, 2018).
Example of a Will opens in new window
Additional Materials
From your course textbook, Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, review the following chapter:
· End-of-Life Dilemmas
From the South University Online Library, review the following articles:
· Recording Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment
· Physicians, Specialised to Support and to Be Consulted in Case of Euthanasia
· Dying with Dignity-Physician Assisted Suicide in India: A Critical Review of Legal Facts
MHA6060 Week 2 Discussion Instructions
Before beginning work on this discussion forum, please review the link “Doing Discussion Questions Right” and any specific instructions for this topic.
Your initial posting should be addressed at 300–500 words. Make your post to this Discussion Area by the due date assigned.
Before the end of the week, begin commenting on at least two of your classmates’ responses. You can ask technical questions or respond generally to the overall experience. Be objective, clear, and concise. Always use constructive language, even in criticism, to work toward the goal of positive progress. Submit your responses in the Discussion Area.
REASONABLE WARNING
Review the following case study and address the questions that follow:
From 1930 to 1960, about 5,000 patients at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, located in Chicago, Illinois, were treated with x-ray therapy for some benign conditions of the head and neck. Among them was Joel Blaz, now a citizen of Florida, who received this treatment for infected tonsils and adenoids while he was a child in Illinois from 1947 through 1948. He has suffered various tumors, which he now attributes to this treatment. Blaz was diagnosed with a neural tumor in 1987.
In 1974, Michael Reese set up the Thyroid Follow-Up Project to gather data and conduct research among the people who had been subjected to the x-ray therapy. In 1975, the program notified Blaz by e-mail that he was at increased risk of developing thyroid tumors because of the treatment. In 1976, someone associated with the program gave him similar information on a phone call and invited him to return to Michael Reese for evaluation and treatment at his own expense, which he declined to do.
Dr. Arthur Schneider was placed in charge of the program in 1977. In 1979, Schneider and Michael Reese submitted a research proposal to the National Institutes of Health stating that a study based on the program showed “strong evidence” of a connection between x-ray treatments of the sort administered to Blaz and various sorts of tumors: thyroid, neural, and others. In 1981, Blaz received but did not complete or return a questionnaire attached to a letter from Schneider in connection with the program. The letter stated that the purpose of the questionnaire was to “investigate the long-term health implications” of childhood radiation treatments and to “determine the possible associated risks.” It did not say anything about “strong evidence” of a connection between the treatments and any tumors.
In 1996, after developing neural tumors, Blaz sued Michael Reese’s successor, Galen Hospital in Illinois, and Dr. Schneider, alleging, among other things, that they failed to notify and warn him of their findings and that he might be at a greater risk of neural tumors in a way that might have permitted their earlier detection and removal or other treatment. There is a clear duty to warn the subject of previously administered radiation treatments when there is a strong connection between those treatments and certain kinds of tumors. The harm alleged, neural and other tumors would here be reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence of the failure to warn and was in fact foreseen by Schneider.
A reasonable physician, indeed any reasonable person, could foresee that if someone was warned of “strong evidence” of a connection between treatments to which he or she had been subjected and tumors, he or she would probably seek diagnosis or treatment and perhaps avoid these tumors, and if he or she was not warned, then he or she probably would not seek diagnosis or treatment, increasing the likelihood that he or she would suffer from such tumors. Other things being equal, therefore, a reasonable physician would warn the subject of the treatments.
Tasks:
1. Discuss the ethical and legal principles violated in this case.
2. Discuss the preventative measures that should be taken to prevent recurrence of such cases.
To support your work, use your course and textbook readings and also use the South University Online Library. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format.
MHA6060 Week 2 Project Instructions
Instructions
Before beginning work on this assignment, please review the expanded grading rubric for specific instructions relating to content and formatting.
UTILITARIAN ETHICS
Each week, you will have the opportunity to explore an ethical theory—consequential ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and nonconsequential ethics—in the context of a case scenario from your textbook. In this week, the focus will be on utilitarian ethics.
Utilitarian ethics is a result-based theory that says the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its ability to maximize happiness or pleasure for all.
Tasks:
1. Download and save the assignment template to your computer and update the file name to include your last name.
2. Review the assigned case in its entirety.
3. Address the questions posed in detail and with appropriate scholarly support.
To support your work, use your course and textbook readings and also use the South University Online Library . As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format.
Submission Details
· By the due date assigned, submit your document to the Submissions Area.
