The health-care professionals and Ronald X’s children are justified in making a leap from his occasional risk-running behavior to the conclusion that he lacks sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life. Because of his condition, Ronald X risks harming himself during one of his periods of confusion. He has already broken a leg, possibly as a result from this condition. Being an older man and living alone; Ronald runs major risks of harming himself and having no one to help. Being under the supervised care provided in a nursing home is the best option. This paternalistic limitation on Ronald X’s liberty is morally obligatory and morally permissible. With his condition, Ronald can no longer care for himself when he experiences periods of confusion. It would be the duty of the health-care professionals and the children to place Ronald in a place able to take care of his needs during these periods of confusion. This limitation is not morally reprehensible. The children and the professionals are looking out for the best interest for Ronald as far as living conditions.
Ronald X experiences occasional periods of confusion due to arteriosclerosis. In his lucid times he is fully aware of his condition and the risk he runs to himself but would prefer to continue living at home rather than be placed in a nursing home as his children wish. He is currently in the hospital as a result of a broken leg, possibly obtained during one of his confused periods. His doctor agrees with his children and refuses to discharge him from the hospital until a nursing home has been chosen. This decision by the medical staff and Ronald’s children is a justified one by the harm principle, paternalism, and social welfare. It is possible that, in wandering the city, Ronald puts others in harm’s way. For example, if he crosses the street without looking, he could cause a car wreck that injures someone else. Confining him would prevent such an accident. Confining him is also for the welfare of his children who are inconvenienced by their father’s wanderings, perhaps having to pick him up, and worrying about his whereabouts. Paternalistically, Ronald has already injured his leg and it may only be a matter of time before he jumps off a balcony or, if he drives, does not stop when necessary. He could also be the target for someone to attack and rob or scam since he is not fully aware of his surroundings. Given such reasoning, limiting Ronald’s liberty is morally obligatory and permissible.
Ronald X should indeed be institutionalized because while in a confused state, he is unable to act autonomously as a result of his condition, making it necessary for paternalistic action to be taken. His children are doing what is really in his best interest. To protect him from hurting himself as well as others, he needs to be institutionalized. It is justified to be paternalistic even in cases where the person is not severely limited in their ability to act autonomously (if accepting a strong paternalistic viewpoint). For this reason, it is morally permissible for Ronald X’s children to interfere. To comment on the case itself, I think more information is needed. How treatable is Ronald X’s condition. I am led to believe that his symptoms could be controlled. Similarly, how often is he affected by his condition? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? More information is needed to understand his level of autonomy and therefore make the best decision.
Ronald X should be institutionalized. In his states of confusion, he is a presenting risk to himself and others. He is aware of his risky behavior but still insists on living at home. He cannot make clear decisions 100% percent of the time due to his arteriosclerosis. I agree that his children only want whats best for him; which would to be under supervision when his states of confusion occur. It is morally obligatory and permissable to limit his liberty because he can no longer decide what his actually best for his own health. I do not think it is morally reprehensible because they are doing what they beleive is in the best interest of their father.
I don't think the hospital had the right to sedate him into compliance. This may be a case of elder abuse in my opinion. It would probably be in Ronald's best interest to go to a nursing home but there needs to be a power of attorney in place first before the family can make decisions for him. I think the family should talk to him and arrange for home health to monitor him for awhile until the family can get power of attorney. This may make Ronald feel less intimidated by his families request to put him in total care. This may be a gentle way of getting him the care he needs. He will be at home and still get the help the family is concerned about.
I think Ronald X's rights are being violated in several ways. For one, sedating a patient so that he is compliant is wrong; the doctor is putting unnecessary drugs into the patient. Although it is probably best for Ronald to be put into a nursing home, he should not be forced to go directly from the hospital. His rights should be protected by allowing him to transition into the home. Yes, he does pose a threat, but at the moment it's mostly to himself and not the people around him. So until his condition worsens, plans should begin to be made about the care of Ronald. When I thought of this case it reminded me of an alcoholic because they go through stages of blacking out. They may be seen as a threat when they drink to access, but until they do something serious, is their right to make decisions taken away?
Oh this case makes me mad. Yes the patient has limitation, and yes he needs assistance at home right now. Two problems, the hospital has no right to sedate him unless he has become combative and that is even hard to get an order for. The children should step up to the plate and help, what happen to family, he has arteriosclerosis which is hardening of the arteries which we all will get, no mention of adjusting those meeds that might help . The children are acting under paternalistic limitation but I don't feel they have the right to totally strip him of his rights they are obligated to be morally loyal to the patient and try what ever mean can to keep him happy, It's so hard getting old. Having an elderly mother, as long as she is provided with home health care , she has the right to live as she wishes. Having said that we all keep close tabs on her activities. If and when she becomes unable to live on her own, she has been compliant and agrees to live with one of the 5 of us.
The health-care professionals and Ronald X’s children are justified in making a leap from his occasional risk-running behavior to the conclusion that he lacks sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life. Because of his condition, Ronald X risks harming himself during one of his periods of confusion. He has already broken a leg, possibly as a result from this condition. Being an older man and living alone; Ronald runs major risks of harming himself and having no one to help. Being under the supervised care provided in a nursing home is the best option. This paternalistic limitation on Ronald X’s liberty is morally obligatory and morally permissible. With his condition, Ronald can no longer care for himself when he experiences periods of confusion. It would be the duty of the health-care professionals and the children to place Ronald in a place able to take care of his needs during these periods of confusion. This limitation is not morally reprehensible. The children and the professionals are looking out for the best interest for Ronald as far as living conditions.
ReplyDeleteRonald X experiences occasional periods of confusion due to arteriosclerosis. In his lucid times he is fully aware of his condition and the risk he runs to himself but would prefer to continue living at home rather than be placed in a nursing home as his children wish. He is currently in the hospital as a result of a broken leg, possibly obtained during one of his confused periods. His doctor agrees with his children and refuses to discharge him from the hospital until a nursing home has been chosen. This decision by the medical staff and Ronald’s children is a justified one by the harm principle, paternalism, and social welfare. It is possible that, in wandering the city, Ronald puts others in harm’s way. For example, if he crosses the street without looking, he could cause a car wreck that injures someone else. Confining him would prevent such an accident. Confining him is also for the welfare of his children who are inconvenienced by their father’s wanderings, perhaps having to pick him up, and worrying about his whereabouts. Paternalistically, Ronald has already injured his leg and it may only be a matter of time before he jumps off a balcony or, if he drives, does not stop when necessary. He could also be the target for someone to attack and rob or scam since he is not fully aware of his surroundings. Given such reasoning, limiting Ronald’s liberty is morally obligatory and permissible.
ReplyDeleteRonald X should indeed be institutionalized because while in a confused state, he is unable to act autonomously as a result of his condition, making it necessary for paternalistic action to be taken. His children are doing what is really in his best interest. To protect him from hurting himself as well as others, he needs to be institutionalized. It is justified to be paternalistic even in cases where the person is not severely limited in their ability to act autonomously (if accepting a strong paternalistic viewpoint). For this reason, it is morally permissible for Ronald X’s children to interfere.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on the case itself, I think more information is needed. How treatable is Ronald X’s condition. I am led to believe that his symptoms could be controlled. Similarly, how often is he affected by his condition? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? More information is needed to understand his level of autonomy and therefore make the best decision.
Ronald X should be institutionalized. In his states of confusion, he is a presenting risk to himself and others. He is aware of his risky behavior but still insists on living at home. He cannot make clear decisions 100% percent of the time due to his arteriosclerosis. I agree that his children only want whats best for him; which would to be under supervision when his states of confusion occur. It is morally obligatory and permissable to limit his liberty because he can no longer decide what his actually best for his own health. I do not think it is morally reprehensible because they are doing what they beleive is in the best interest of their father.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the hospital had the right to sedate him into compliance. This may be a case of elder abuse in my opinion. It would probably be in Ronald's best interest to go to a nursing home but there needs to be a power of attorney in place first before the family can make decisions for him. I think the family should talk to him and arrange for home health to monitor him for awhile until the family can get power of attorney. This may make Ronald feel less intimidated by his families request to put him in total care. This may be a gentle way of getting him the care he needs. He will be at home and still get the help the family is concerned about.
ReplyDeleteI think Ronald X's rights are being violated in several ways. For one, sedating a patient so that he is compliant is wrong; the doctor is putting unnecessary drugs into the patient. Although it is probably best for Ronald to be put into a nursing home, he should not be forced to go directly from the hospital. His rights should be protected by allowing him to transition into the home. Yes, he does pose a threat, but at the moment it's mostly to himself and not the people around him. So until his condition worsens, plans should begin to be made about the care of Ronald. When I thought of this case it reminded me of an alcoholic because they go through stages of blacking out. They may be seen as a threat when they drink to access, but until they do something serious, is their right to make decisions taken away?
ReplyDeleteOh this case makes me mad. Yes the patient has limitation, and yes he needs assistance at home right now. Two problems, the hospital has no right to sedate him unless he has become combative and that is even hard to get an order for. The children should step up to the plate and help, what happen to family, he has arteriosclerosis which is hardening of the arteries which we all will get, no mention of adjusting those meeds that might help . The children are acting under paternalistic limitation but I don't feel they have the right to totally strip him of his rights they are obligated to be morally loyal to the patient and try what ever mean can to keep him happy, It's so hard getting old. Having an elderly mother, as long as she is provided with home health care , she has the right to live as she wishes. Having said that we all keep close tabs on her activities. If and when she becomes unable to live on her own, she has been compliant and agrees to live with one of the 5 of us.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in chennai