PDF-(READ)-Making Medical Decisions for the Profoundly Mentally Disabled (Basic Bioethics)

In this book Norman Cantor analyzes the legal and moral status of people with profound mental disabilitiesthose with extreme cognitive impairments that prevent their exercise of medical selfdetermination He proposes a legal and moral framework for surrogate medical decision making on their behalf The issues Cantor explores will be of interest to professionals in law medicine psychology philosophy and ethics as well as to parents guardians and health care providers who face perplexing issues in the context of surrogate medical decision making The profoundly mentally disabled are thought by some moral philosophers to lack the minimum cognitive ability for personhood Countering this position Cantor advances both theoretical and practical arguments for according them full legal and moral status He also argues that the concept of intrinsic human dignity should have an integral role in shaping the bounds of surrogate decision making Thus he claims while profoundly mentally disabled persons are not entitled to make their own medical decisions respect for intrinsic human dignity dictates their right to have a conscientious surrogate make medical decisions on their behalf Cantor discusses the criteria that bind such surrogates He asserts contrary to popular wisdom that the best interests of the disabled person are not always the determinative standard the interests of family or others can sometimes be considered Surrogates may even consistent with the intrinsic human dignity standard sometimes authorize tissue donation or participation in nontherapeutic medical research by profoundly disabled persons Intrinsic human dignity limits the occasions for such decisions and dictates close attention to the preferences and feelings of the profoundly disabled persons themselves Cantor also analyzes the underlying philosophical rationale that makes these decisionmaking criteria consistent with law and morals Basic Bioethics series. “It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you get off . on . sometimes. . What . matters most is getting off. You cannot make progress without making decisions. .”. Jim . Rohn. . “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”. Conceptualising. Work and Welfare in the 21. st. Century. Simon . Prideaux. School of Sociology and Social Policy. University of Leeds, UK. 1. This paper:. Critically . explores and contextualizes recent shifts towards self directed support services for disabled people and their families in the United Kingdom (UK). Dance. : Cultural Heritage, Audience Literacy and Legal Contributions . SLSA, Warwick 2015 . Art, Culture and Heritage/Cultural Heritage and Disability: Mutual Reinforcement or Ambivalence. Prof Charlotte . A WORKSHOP FOR LAWYERS ABOUT CAREER DECISION MAKING. Why Lawyers Get Stuck-Career Indecisiveness. Not all lawyers have made an unequivocal decision to be or remain lawyers-some level of doubt is common. . Video . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOP3L2oB0k. . . Significant prevalence across a wide range: . 80% of children and young people with learning disabilities . 70% of children and young people with autism. calm which only apparently precedes. The . and prophesies of the storm is perhaps more awful. than the storm itself.. Moby Dick . --Herman Melville. profound. The stillness was so. animal twittering somewhere nearby under the snow.. Objective: . We will learn to use estimation and mental math to find the percent of a number. . It’s your best friends birthday and you invite him and a group of friends to Chili’s. The restaurant bill was $42 dollars. The waiter treated you really well and you want to give him an extra 10% percent tip. How much money will you pay the waiter??. SDMH EMC 2016. Objectives. Principles of mental health assessment. The legal framework in NSW. Common presenting . scenarios. The agitated and . behaviourally. disturbed patient. Personality disorders and the ED. Getting Started . Definitions. Prison. Function. Minimum, Medium, and Maximum Security . Private Prisons. Jail . Function. (Gaines, 2006). Mental disorder. (NAMI.org). History. Demonology – Believed possession . in the . Workplace. The Need to Increase ‘Voice’ and . Representation in Disability Policy and Practice . The limits of law. EqA. 2010, brought with it new possibilities . Uneven impact – importance of regional governance. Dr Nadia von Benzon. Lecturer in Human Geography, . SoGEES. n. adia.vonbenzon@plymouth.ac.uk. Research: explored the relationship – including experiences and perceptions – between learning disabled young people and outdoor green space.. Sri . Lanka:. Implications . for . CBR/CBID. Masateru. . Higashida. Chamara. . Kumarasinghe. ආයුබෝවන්. !. Background. . & Literature Review. Field Research . Discussion and Conclusions. Modern scientific and medical advances bring new complexity and urgency to ethical issues in health care and biomedical research. This book applies the American philosophical theory of pragmatism to such bioethics. Critics of pragmatism argue that it lacks a universal moral foundation. Yet it is this very lack of a metaphysical dividing line between facts and values that makes pragmatism such a rigorous and appropriate method for solving problems in bioethics. For pragmatism, ethics is a way of satisfying the complex demands of multiple individuals and groups in a contingent and changing world. Pragmatism also demands careful attention to the ways in which scientific advances change our values and ethics. The essays in this book present different approaches to pragmatism and different ways of applying pragmatism to scientific and medical matters. They use pragmatism to guide thinking about such timely topics as stem cell research, human cloning, genetic testing, human enhancement, and care for the poor and aging. This new edition contains three new chapters, on difficulties with applying pragmatism to law and bioethics, on helping people to die, and on embryonic stem cell research. In recent years, bioethicists have worked on government commissions, on ethics committees in hospitals and nursing homes, and as bedside consultants. Because ethical knowledge is based on experience within the field rather than on universal theoretical propositions, it is open to criticism for its lack of theoretical foundation. Once in the clinic, however, ethicists noted the extent to which medical practice itself combined the certitudes of science with craft forms of knowledge. In an effort to forge a middle path between pure science and applied medical and ethical knowledge, bioethicists turned to the work of classical philosophy, especially the theme of a practical wisdom that entails a variable knowledge of particulars. In this book contemporary bioethicists and scholars of ancient philosophy explore the import of classical ethics on such pressing bioethical concerns as managed care, euthanasia, suicide, and abortion. Although the contributors write within the limits of their own disciplines, through cross references and counterarguments they engage in fruitful dialogue.