Question

Analyze the purpose of Article 25 of the 1948 UDHR and the Constitution of the WHO.

In your opinion, do these two positive laws contradict the no-duty principle in the United States? Why or why not?

The term "the right to make informed health care decisions" is an important health care right of patients that have the right to make informed decisions about the direction of their care, including refusing treatment. Give your views on this statement and support your answer using relevant references.

Compare and contrast the terms "the right to make informed health care decisions" and "the right to health."

In your opinion on life or death situations, do you think individuals should be allowed to refuse treatment? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No , no duty principle will work out only when the client is no longer able to rescue. The above two laws mentions on the normal healthy individuals. No duty principle can do only in the conditions of euthanasia.

Of course every patient should know about their health conditions and about the treatment given to them.only if the patient wish we can do treatment. We should also accept the refusing the treatment suppose a patient at the end stage of disease may be our treatment strategies may give pain to the patient they are not even ready to tolerate that in that condition if patient refuse treatment along with the family members consideration with a consent signature we can stop treatment

Contrast view,for example,we give vaccines to children which are described in universal immunization schedule that is right to health. But we suggest extra vaccines , that is their choice to have or not that is right to make informed health care decisions.

whatever the procedure we should get consent from patient in terms of their health.

Individuals are allowed to refuse treatment.Because its their own health may be they cannot tolerate the disease prognosis.or due to some financial crisis.