Should Mr. Chapman Be Allowed To Treat Anxiety?
Case 3 Part C
For the case of Mr. Chapman, our group decided that he should not be allowed to smoke and another alternative method should be used to treat his anxiety. This action is consistent with the level of moral behavior that I anticipated because action needed to be taken to either prevent or allow Mr. Chapman to smoke. As mentioned earlier, we recommended that Mr. Chapman find an alternative method to reduce his anxiety. Possible solutions include medication, or a nicotine patch and gum.
I am satisfied with the caring response we choose because it benefits all of the stakeholders. First, Mr. Chapman will have lower levels of anxiety, and his overall health at the end of life may improve. Also, he can now spend time around family members or loved ones without fear of injuring them. For the family, they will now have an ease of mind because their safety will remain solid, and they will not have to worry about the safety of their husband or …show more content…
dad. Lastly, the health professionals can better care for the patient by reducing his anxiety, while creating a safe environment, during the end of life.
The aspects that were the most challenging for me were Mr.
Chapman’s autonomy, and end of life wishes. First, the patient had full capacity and understood his condition, so to prevent him from smoking seemed to infringe on his personal right to autonomy. However, we disregarded his right to autonomy when his actions placed an innocent third party in danger. It is the responsibility of the health professionals to promote nonmaleficnece, which is to do no harm, and beneficence, which includes removing harm when it is being inflicted. Thus, as a health professional the workers should not allow Mr. Chapman to smoke. The other aspect of the case that was difficult was the patient’s rights ,at the end of life. Mr. Chapman is a grown man who has lived a long life, so it seems appropriate to allow him to make choices on how to live the end of his life. However, as stated earlier, Mr. Chapman is not only placing his life in danger, but also the lives of people around him, so he should not be allowed to smoke for these
reasons.
This situation will relate closely with my future profession. My goal is to work with geriatrics during my professional practice, so I will most likely work with patient’s who have entered hospice, or are near the end of their lives. It is important for me to promote patient autonomy; however, I must also promote beneficence and nonmaleficence. Therefore, my actions must coincicde with the patient’s wishes, and what I believe is best for the patient. If this case were to happen later in my career, I would act in the same way. It is common for patient’s to demand things at the end of their life, but it is my duty to protect them and find an alternative method of care; such as, the nicotine patches or anti-anxiety medications prescribed for Mr. Chapman.
If my family members were involved in the situation, I would want the health professionals to act in a way similar to my suggestions. First, I would want my family member to be comfortable at the end of life, but I also want them and myself to remain safe. There are many ways to reduce anxiety including medication, art therapy, and exercise. Each patient is unique; however, most hospice workers have practice and techniques aimed at reducing their patient’s anxiety. Also, if I was living in the same house as Mr. Chapman, I would not want him to smoke because it placing me at a high risk of becoming injured. Although smoking may help him feel better, Mr. Chapman would not want to place his loved ones in danger, so finding another outlet for his anxiety would be very beneficial and productive. In conclusion, my family, were directly involved in this case, I would not change my analysis.
For the case of Mr. Chapman, our group decided that he should not be allowed to smoke and another alternative method should be used to treat his anxiety. This action is consistent with the level of moral behavior that I anticipated because action needed to be taken to either prevent or allow Mr. Chapman to smoke. As mentioned earlier, we recommended that Mr. Chapman find an alternative method to reduce his anxiety. Possible solutions include medication, or a nicotine patch and gum.
I am satisfied with the caring response we choose because it benefits all of the stakeholders. First, Mr. Chapman will have lower levels of anxiety, and his overall health at the end of life may improve. Also, he can now spend time around family members or loved ones without fear of injuring them. For the family, they will now have an ease of mind because their safety will remain solid, and they will not have to worry about the safety of their husband or …show more content…
dad. Lastly, the health professionals can better care for the patient by reducing his anxiety, while creating a safe environment, during the end of life.
The aspects that were the most challenging for me were Mr.
Chapman’s autonomy, and end of life wishes. First, the patient had full capacity and understood his condition, so to prevent him from smoking seemed to infringe on his personal right to autonomy. However, we disregarded his right to autonomy when his actions placed an innocent third party in danger. It is the responsibility of the health professionals to promote nonmaleficnece, which is to do no harm, and beneficence, which includes removing harm when it is being inflicted. Thus, as a health professional the workers should not allow Mr. Chapman to smoke. The other aspect of the case that was difficult was the patient’s rights ,at the end of life. Mr. Chapman is a grown man who has lived a long life, so it seems appropriate to allow him to make choices on how to live the end of his life. However, as stated earlier, Mr. Chapman is not only placing his life in danger, but also the lives of people around him, so he should not be allowed to smoke for these
reasons.
This situation will relate closely with my future profession. My goal is to work with geriatrics during my professional practice, so I will most likely work with patient’s who have entered hospice, or are near the end of their lives. It is important for me to promote patient autonomy; however, I must also promote beneficence and nonmaleficence. Therefore, my actions must coincicde with the patient’s wishes, and what I believe is best for the patient. If this case were to happen later in my career, I would act in the same way. It is common for patient’s to demand things at the end of their life, but it is my duty to protect them and find an alternative method of care; such as, the nicotine patches or anti-anxiety medications prescribed for Mr. Chapman.
If my family members were involved in the situation, I would want the health professionals to act in a way similar to my suggestions. First, I would want my family member to be comfortable at the end of life, but I also want them and myself to remain safe. There are many ways to reduce anxiety including medication, art therapy, and exercise. Each patient is unique; however, most hospice workers have practice and techniques aimed at reducing their patient’s anxiety. Also, if I was living in the same house as Mr. Chapman, I would not want him to smoke because it placing me at a high risk of becoming injured. Although smoking may help him feel better, Mr. Chapman would not want to place his loved ones in danger, so finding another outlet for his anxiety would be very beneficial and productive. In conclusion, my family, were directly involved in this case, I would not change my analysis.