Benchmark Brain Death Scenario

Benchmark Brain Death Scenario

            In the world of healthcare coverage, a problematic condition is a problem that the medical practitioner will still contend with every day. The circumstance provided in this task necessitates crucial decisions that impact the patient’s life. In this case, the 45-year-old patient does not satisfy all the state-defined requirements for reporting brain death. However, the patient suffers from severe brain injury (Pozgar, 2012). The patient cannot render any professional judgment in the circumstance of his or her condition. The patient’s family also has to decide for the patient, and the relatives do not usually accept one opinion.

In this situation, as a hospital administrator, all ethical considerations and all legal troubles ought to be discussed (Pozgar, 2012). The patient in the case is experiencing tremendously but does not collapse as a total brain death underneath the guidelines, which may place the medical practitioners in a state of doubt. The care practitioners will not be able to pick the direction they have to follow for the patient to go on with a procedure. It will provide full value to the patient regarding the mental disorder of the patient with the care practitioners being in a state of limbo. Recognizing the moral concept for non-malfeasance is important if healthcare professionals decide for patient treatment (Pozgar, 2012).

They need to see what the patient will be harmer during medical treatment. In this instance, fairness is a vital issue of morality that needs to be remembered for sensitive cases like this. All the medical assistance needs to be given to the patient on a reasonable basis. This is the medical establishment’s responsibility to do so. Ethical principles of sovereignty enable the immediate representatives of the patient’s family to determine the patient’s judgment when the patient is not in a position of making a judgment on its own (Pozgar, 2012). In my view, this makes it almost impossible for the relatives of the patient’s family to come together as well as make a tough decision to choose a direction through which is safe for the medical provider to treat the patient.

According to Pozgar, throughout medical treatment, the regulations of the States of America affirm and clarify every human being’s constitutional right to take life-related critical decisions. Any instance may refuse or deny medical treatment, which the medical provider attempts to include to them under the regulations of the United States (Pozgar, 2012). In the given scenario, where the instance can not decide for itself, the decisions need to be made in an end-of-life predicament by the members of the patient’s family (Pozgar, 2012). For this case, most of the patient’s family feels like the patient wouldn’t want to live that way while the other half feels differently, which makes the medical care views vary.

This constitutes as patient killing if medical clinic staff discontinue life-sustaining medical treatment or medication for the patient. Health practitioners and care facilities should address this legal problem objectively. Some other ethical focus is getting a fair judgment from judgment-making proxy on the patient’s perspective. At about the period of the statutory judgment-making process, the justice system would, however, consider the value of existence that the human individual would have had in eliminating life-supporting artificial assistance (Pozgar, 2012).

The case of Terri Schiavo is a situation that is well recognized in the field of medicine and seems to be similar to the very same scenario presented whereby the patient’s condition appears to be between death and life. The patient could not make a judgment for himself. With regards to medical care, the spouse of the patient, as well as the parents of the patient were not on specific grounds. The state’s governor recognizes the case that prompted them to pass the legislation in favour of the procedure. Terri Schiavo faced numerous legal rulings and other problems throughout the hearings of the justice system (Pozgar, 2012). The legal system recognized the husband of the woman. He wanted the medical centre to withdraw help for the patient’s life, and the patient’s parents later challenged it.

The brain is the most vital organ within the human body. If a person has a brain injury, as in this example, there are problems raised during medical treatment. In the given scenario, the patient’s body may come into contact with certain medical conditions by medical practitioners or medical staff, according to Pozgar. The most prevalent medicinal problem is fever and infectious disease. They can quickly become infected in the bladder and lungs after the patient has a brain injury (Pozgar, 2012). The patient will also face clots of blood in his or her arms or legs. Migraines can also occur whenever the patient suffers from brain damage. When the small parts of the brain are involved on their own, that is when delusions arise.

Heterotypical ossification is something that a patient will experience when the patient has brain injuries. Heterotypical degeneration is an irregular bone development in the non-skeletal structures, including muscle, tendons, or any other soft tissues (Pozgar, 2012). It can happen at the large joints, for instance, the hips of the patient or the shoulder of the patient. This may also cause stretching, pain, pain, and inflammation in the joints.

As an administrator of medical services, I will analyze the circumstance considering all dilemmas ethically and legally respecting all aspects because the patient is the one impacted in this case. The situation in this circumstance is incapable of making any options, while the representatives of the immediate family of the patient only need to make those decisions of the patient (Pozgar, 2012). This situation is almost the same as the situation of Terri Schiavo since the patient’s immediate family couldn’t agree to specific terms about the patient’s correct solution. My response as a healthcare facility administrator to this situation would have been to assist the patient’s immediate family members in finding common conditions so that the medical personnel can do their duties. This is my responsibility as an administrator of medical facilities to try and ensure the patient receives the proper medical attention (Pozgar, 2012).

As a medical facility administrator, I will ensure that perhaps the medical facilities proceed to provide all the medical services that the patient needs before the agreement can be reached with the patient’s close relatives. In doing so, as a healthcare facility professional, I must morally fulfil the patient’s question of benevolence (Pozgar, 2012). The doctor and the medical staff must support the patient to heal from brain injury in some way. Likewise, as an administrator, I would be fulfilling some other ethical dilemma of fairness for just the situation by so doing. It is the right of the patient to receive medical attention from the doctor as immediately as possible.

This would be my simple terms-term plan upon consulting the healthcare provider. In the situation of legal entanglements, this option will benefit me in a circumstance wherein the patient is in a position of death or life. As an administrator of medical facilities, I would highly recommend that the family come to an understanding because if they continue to extend the option, the massive loss could arise. If the family is somehow unable to strike an agreement, I would suggest that they explore contacting relevant agencies to allow the judiciary to make a decision. The spouse and parents did not agree in Terri’s case, and that is why they requested the court to make that decision for them. I’d present this similar scenario (Pozgar, 2012)

.

I’d put the family up to this specific situation. I can wholeheartedly recommend that all patient family members provide the compliance department with all the details to help them evaluate. In this case, I will probably use Terri’s rule (Pozgar, 2012). As a supervisor of medical services, I will continue with precise guidance to this situation. In this case, the judiciary would have to order as it attracts all concerns morally, all matters lawfully, and brings with it problems of care. If not, consider any of these challenges that could go south against the healthcare facility throughout the processes of making the correct decision.

 References

Pozgar, G. (2012). Legal aspects of health care administration (11th ed.). Jones & Bartlett

Learning, LLC.