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…
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
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…
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