Question

An older woman in Maryland with a multitude of medical problems had completed her advance directive. Her husband was aware and gave his consent. The woman's advance directive was also shared with their children, where they understood that she should not be resuscitated if she was admitted into the hospital. Two years later, the woman goes into cardiac and respiratory arrest. When she arrives at the hospital, the hospital staff begin resuscitation efforts. The woman survives but has multiple broken ribs, a lung punctured, and a long path to recovery and rehabilitation that she and her husband cannot afford. Both the woman and her family are outraged and sue the hospital for keeping her alive and disregarding her advance directive.

Do you think it is more important to keep a patient alive or allow him or her to die if that is what the patient requests?

Do you think the court will side with the patient or hospital staff? Why?

Answer 1

To the hospital it is important to keep the patient alive. But in this case the woman already taken an advanced directives, so it had more importance. It is a right of a person to decide their medical care. Advanced directive gives the permission to the patient to select the decision about medical care treatment and the patient likes to avoid the resusitation.

The court will be in the side of hospital staff. This is because of the family members are aware about the directives and CPR is an emergency procedure hospital staff not taken proper history but its the family members responsibility to notify it.