Autonomy And Lashanda

Considering the chapter in Jacob’s life at 32, it is a time when many are surrounding themselves with family, working the job they were determined to get, having children or pets, and possibly traveling. Looking at Erikson’s theory, Jacob is considered a “young adult” experiencing intimacy vs. isolation, meaning: this is a time when individuals seek companionship and start families, but if unsuccessful, isolation may occur (Erikson, 2014). Furthmore, considering Jacob has been living with his condition for 10 years, there could have been failure to success in this stage; therefore, leading to feelings of isolation and hopelessness. Moreover, the following questions arise: Does Jacob have support systems such as a wife or other family? How
After that, I will be applying the theory Consequentialism. Before I begin I will define each principle. Autonomy refers to the client’s freedom of decision-making. While beneficence means “doing good for the client.” Moreover, Non Maleficence means “doing no harm to clients.” In addition, fidelity means “being loyal and faithful to commitments and accountable for responsibilities.” (Huber, 2014). Evaluating the alternative choice under Autonomy, Jacob has made the decision to have his advanced directive as do not resuscitate (DNR); therefore, by checking Jacob’s advanced directive, Lashanda will ensure respect towards his decision. Since beneficence focuses on doing what is best for the client, we want to make sure the nurse does everything she can for the best possible outcome relating to Jacob and his decision. Furthermore, non-maleficence refers to doing no harm to your client, which is what the alternative choice for Lashanda is following. By double-checking Jacob’s advanced directive, Lashanda will reduce the risk of causing harm to Jacob in any way. A risk for harm may involve anything physical or mental, such as brain damage occurring from several minutes without oxygen. Fidelity is another principle that is followed if the nurse follows the alternative choice to the situation because responsible for any actions she
Considering the dilemma that Lashanda was faced with, her thoughts in that moment should be determined based on the consequences of her actions. An example of this is: Lashanda does not perform CPR and Jacob dies or she resuscitates him and he has a chance to live. Out of those two possible actions the nurse chose to resuscitate him because in that situation she considered it to be the right thing to do. Considering Jacob’s age, many of us would have done what the nurse did. Unfortunately, when a patient’s end-of-life decisions have not been followed by the nurse, he or she will be charged with battery. Battery is having “physical contact with another person without that person’s consent”; therefore, clients sign a form for their care and treatment on admission (Rosdahl & Kowalski, 2008). Moreover, Jacob made the decision to not be resuscitated, however, Lashanda went against that. If we think of the situation in Jacob’s perspective, he may be viewing his life as the quality (how happy he is) versus quantity (his age), and therefore went about making his decision. Looking back at how the nurse approaches the situation, allowing Jacob to die without doing anything is very un-sensitive and unlikely in the nursing profession. At the end of the day us nurses are still human and many of us are very compassionate and sensitive towards our clients, and therefore