Analyze ethical and legal implications of cases involving bioethics. Two examples of highly publicized cases are listed below.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Analyze legal concepts relative to the healthcare profession.
Scenario
Analyze ethical and legal implications of cases involving bioethics. Two examples of highly publicized cases are listed below.
The national discussion concerning decision making for incompetent patients began with the 1976 case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Because she had been left in a persistent vegetative state after two periods of anoxia, her parents sought court authorization to remove her from a ventilator. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a landmark, unanimous decision, authorized the removal on the basis of Quinlan’s constitutional right of privacy, which the court concluded would be lost unless her parents were given authority to exercise it on her behalf.1 In the 15 years since Quinlan, courts in almost 20 states have reviewed disputes regarding treatment for incompetent patients. Courts in all these states have recognized the general right of competent people to refuse treatment, and in all but two states have also ultimately found that the U.S. Constitution, state constitution, or common law permits a surrogate to make treatment decisions on behalf of an incompetent person (Annas, 1990).
The case of Nancy Cruzan is essentially identical to that of Karen Ann Quinlan, with one exception: Nancy Cruzan, a young woman in a persistent vegetative state as a result of a 1983 automobile accident, requires only tube feeding (rather than a ventilator and tube feeding) to continue to survive. Her parents firmly believe she would not want to have tube feeding continued under such circumstances, in part on the basis of her own statement that she would not want to continue to live if she could not be “at least halfway normal.” For this reason, a trial judge authorized her parents to have their daughter’s tube feeding discontinued (Annas, 1990).
Instructions
Select a case for which you are familiar or have an interest that involves medical ethics. Prepare a case analysis using the IRAC method. Your analysis should address the following:
- The Issue
- Rule
- Analysis
- Conclusion
Resources
http://www.practicalbioethics.org/
Annas, George J,J.D., M.P.H. (1990). Sounding board: Nancy cruzan and the right to die. The New England Journal of Medicine, 323(10), 670-673.
Grading Rubric
| F | F | C | B | A |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Did not Submit | No Pass | Competence | Proficiency | Mastery |
| Not Submitted | An inappropriate or inadequate identification of the legal issue in the selected case OR not in the form of a question. | Issue is correctly identified and in the form of a question, but is minimally developed. | Issue from the selected case is, correctly identified, developed and accurately defined as to why the case went to court and is in the form of a question. | Issue from the selected case is correctly identified, fully developed and accurately defined as to why the case went to court and is stated in the form of a question. |
| Not Submitted | An inappropriate or inadequate identification of the relevant legal principles. | Identifies a majority of the relevant legal principles and their source of authority with minor issues or omissions. | Identifies all of the relevant legal principles and their source of authority with minor issues or omissions. | Identifies all of the relevant legal principles and their source of authority. |
| Not Submitted | An inappropriate or inadequate analysis of the case. Arguments are illogical or are missing supporting information. | Analysis is present, but is minimally developed with supporting information. | Analysis is accurate with the relevant legal principles and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the Issue(s) will be resolved with minor issues. | Analysis is accurate and comprehensive with the relevant legal principles and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the Issue(s) will be resolved. |
| Not Submitted | Conclusion is inappropriate or inadequate. | Conclusion is minimally developed and supported with information from the analysis section. | Conclusion provides a developed and accurate answer to the issues of the case that is supported by information from the analysis section with minor issues or lapses in reasoning. | Conclusion provides a fully developed and accurate answer to the issues of the case that is supported by information from the analysis section. |
| Not Submitted | Case Analysis is not in the appropriate IRAC format. | Case Analysis attempts the IRAC format, but contains issues with formatting. | Case Analysis is in the appropriate IRAC format with minor formatting issues. | Case Analysis is in the appropriate IRAC format. |
Subject: Health & Medical,
Answer preview…………………………….
apa 915 words