Mrs Sparza had a right to prognostication. Legally the decision made by a patient depends on the prognosis of the disease.
This helps to determine the expected duration of the disease and the quality of the life after the operation. Chronic illnesses have a faster decline and a short duration after operation incase the condition worsens. In Mrs Sparza’s case her condition was not chronic prior to the operation. She therefore had the right get prognostic predictions which were to be relied to her and her agent to aid in decision making.
Denying patients and their families the right to communication impairs the right regarding end of life decision. Information is power and patients preserve the right to receive information needed for preparation for death. The hospital had the proactive role of discussing such reports for a patient to fulfil wishes either family or financial before the death. The family ensures that the wishes of the patient are fulfilled. In this case Mrs Sparza decision had been relied to her family.This decision cushions the family and prevents the agony of a lifelong suffering of the patient with medical diagnosis showing that there will be no recovery. The patient’s emotions and the fear of being a burden and abandonment give a reason for the wish.
(Blank, R & Merrick, J 2005). The injection of morphine translates to active euthanasia which is the deliberate act undertaken with consent of the patient to terminate the life of a terminally ill patient suffering from an incurable illness. Its illegal in most parts of USA but legal in few states namely Washington and Oregon.Active voluntary euthanasia legally translates to murder irrespective of the special circumstances. Physcians who abets the practise faces criminal liability under statutes that prohibit assistance or aiding suicide. Although there exists restrictions on the practise there exists anomalies in the application of the statute due to availability of medical facts and research done by human rights groups for its legalisation.
(Otlowski 2000) The case of Terri Schiavo (2003) and Ann Quinlan (1976) brought the debate into the spotlight.It has led to conclusion that reform is appropriate and necessary. Such a legislation will give doctors immunity from prosecution provide euthanasia is applied in accordance with legal and medical statutes especially with the consent of the patient and when the condition of the patient warrants the same. Conclusion The rights of any patient to free informed consent is a necessary good that ensures any decision taken by her and her family is sound and the best.
The hospital’s assistance and help will give a patient more understanding of the appropriate and risk free decision.Proper consent reduces vulnerability of the patient and is a prerequisite for medical procedures. The patient should also be well-advised when making end life decisions to guaranty the sanctity of life. Quick response and reforms should be introduced to ensure the morality and legality of the law on euthanasia in all States. This will ensure that future patients will not undergo what Terri Schiavo underwent on her hospital bed.
REFERENCES Otlowski, M 🙁 2000). Voluntary Euthanasia and the common Law. Tasmania. Oxford University Press.
Blank, R & Merrick, J (2005). End of Life Decision Making: Florida. MIT Press.