Feeding tube case study

Feeding organ pipe deterrent example studyI. Feeding Tube Case StudyThe two cases in question here(predicate) have several similarities and differences. The two cases atomic number 18 similar because they ar dealing with two elderly longanimouss who are non in a position to take business organisation of themselves. In the first case of Eleanor Dawson who is 92 years old, apart from having a urinary tract infection and developing a large draw on her coccyx, she is also pitiful from senile dementia which is further worsening the case at hand. wild dementia which is a distemper characteristic of old age, affect brain cells and thus firmnessing to progressive repositing loss and mental abilities. There is no known cure for this disease. As a result, the patient is difficulties in agreementing and accepting new things making her completely incapable of self care including bathing and eating. This is the reason why the stretch the order has ordered that a eating tube to be used on Eleanor who has ultimately refused. The second case involves Helen Jefferson who is 88 years old and suffering from a terminal unwellness (untreatable breast cancer). Her cancer has spread to several parts of her body including b onenesss and lungs. As a result she has given up hope on her life and she is ready to die. Consequently, she refuses to eat and that is the reason why the doctor has ordered a nasogastric feeding tube for her. This makes the two cases similar in that, it involves two elderly women suffering from untreatable diseases. Both of them also have refused to eat and both refuse feeding tubes to be used on them (Newson Aldous, 2005).These two cases are however different in the sense that Eleanor is suffering from senile dementia which doer that she can non reason normally. As a result her rejection of the feeding tube is absolutely normal because patients with that type of disease refuse to accept new things. Helen on the other hand understands clearly the consequences of her actions and she is refusing to eat intentionally which makes her case different from that of Eleanor.These two cases are however very complex due to their legal implications. First, it is a plague to allow someone to die from dehydration or starvation in our put up and hence it is a must to report such incidents. Secondly, there is a hold will statute in our state which mandates all the nurses and doctors to respect incompetent patients wishes. The last complication in these cases is the fact that both of the patients have living wills stating that they do not wish to be maintained on life support devices such as a ventilator. The appropriate action to take in such a scenario is to report these two incidents to the pertinent authorities, explaining the legal complications surrounding these two cases, conclude by asking for permission to be allowed to use feeding tubes on these two patients since they will both die of starvation if not fed through the tubes b ecause they are not in a position to feed themselves (Newson Aldous, 2005) II. Malpractice Case StudyIn this case, I infer the nurse is liable for the patient defacement because they would not have occurred if she had ensured that her assistant had clearly understood what she meant by placing a hot water bottle on the patients left lower leg. Assumption/omission is one of the mistakes nurses should never make in their profession. She would have clearly explained the procedure to the assistant and make a hold fast up after a while to ensure that the instructions were followed to the letter. Since she omitted giving her assistant the right instructions, the patient was injured hence making her liable for the injury (Dimond, 2005).All elements of malpractice were present in this case because the care provided by the nurse to the patient did not meet the standard of care required of her (breach of duty of care) second the nurse had accepted to care of the patient (Abele, 2004) and h ence she was supposed to treat him with care and diligence which she did not do (duty of care), thirdly if standard care would have been followed to take care of the patient injury would not have occurred (proximate cause), and finally whatever happened was careless and inappropriate behavior on the part of the nurse which resulted to injury (injury was proved) (Morissette, 2008). ReferencesAbele, J. R. (2004). Medical errors and litigation investigation and case preparation. UK Lawyers Judges Publishing CompanyDimond, B. (2005). Legal aspects of nursing. New York Pearson LongmanMorissette, E. L. (2008). in the flesh(predicate) Injury and the Law of Torts for Paralegals. New York Aspen Publishers OnlineNewson, L., Aldous, J. (2005). The Legal Maze VCE Units 1 and 2. South Melbourne Macmillan Education Aus.