Legal and Ethical Questions in Healthcare - Assignment Example

It may be easier to argue that the physicians are right to suppress treatment on the patient, but a critical look at the case renders illegitimate, the approach they are taking. It is not lucid to argue that resources being used to treat the comatose patient are scarce, since not all patients are ICU or comatose patients. The growing number of outpatient referrals and attendees and the presence of patients needing less serious medical attention downplay the notion that healthcare resources are too scarce to support the right group.

At the same time, the argument that it is unfair to spend a lot of money on the elderly instead of the relatively youthful smacks of ageism. The principle of benevolence (beneficence) also requires that the doctors should act in the patient’s best interests. It is clear that the comatose patient has not communicated his will (whether to have a Physician aid-in-dying, or not), and therefore, it is unlawful for these physicians to arrogate themselves this duty. The principle of non-malfeasance also prohibits these physicians from harming the patient.

To extend the argument that non-malfeasance can have a double meaning to the elderly is not enough since even the young can be terminally ill. Likewise, the party that should characterize actions pertaining to non-malfeasance has not yet been ascertained; whether it is the doctor, the profession, the society or the patient. The action being taken by the physicians is unlawful, as it borders along passive euthanasia. Lastly, the principle of autonomy also asserts the right and legitimacy of patients to choose how their illnesses should be treated and to speak in this light.

It is not right to argue that as people grow older, they lose the ability to make decisions, unless the patient is legally declared non compos mentis. Even in the case of non compos mentis, categorizing the patient as unwanted in lieu of wanted, must factor the input of the legal surrogate or an Advanced Directive. Question 2 As the government reduces payments for healthcare services, the ethical issues of limiting care that are bound to emerge, border on the EOL (end of life). Particularly, concerns such as the kind of care and the amount of money that should be expended on people with limited lifespan are to arise.

This development is likely to catalyze conflicts between physicians and patients’ family members on the essence and extent of appropriate care. Annually, the government has had to absorb billions for undocumented and uncompensated care. In 2008 for instance, hospitals were compelled to absorb 36 billion US dollars in unpaid care. This figure included bills and charity care that remained unpaid by both the underinsured and the uninsured. Similarly, in the event that the government cuts its funding for healthcare services, people with no resources to access healthcare services are likely to turn to unqualified medical centers and practitioners.

This is because restricted funding by the government will have made healthcare services inaccessible and too expensive for many (Leigh & Wheatley, 2010). According to Dewar (2010), the state's responsibility to ensure healthcare services is diverse, given that healthcare services and goods are public or social goods. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure the highest level of affordability and accessibility to healthcare services by the public. The government can do this by for instance, easing