Critique writer’s response to Case Study
The writer makes clear and concise efforts to see that all the main points of the article are addressed in the response. The writer addresses the necessity of care and understanding that arises in situations of DOR wishes and terminal illnesses. The citing of the Kubler-Ross Theory illustrates well the issues that are being seen in the individual family members. The writer also did well to attribute each phase of grief to the different family members. The main issue in the case study was that of the daughter, Kate’s, inability to accept the wishes of her dying father.
His well documented intentions to avoid advanced life support measures in the event critical health, however, over-ride the well intentioned, if uninformed, wishes of Kate. The writer also notes that the durable power of attorney has been placed in the hands of Evan, the elder son, and therefore, what ever decisions that are to be made, pass through him first. As is stated in the original response, the two most accepted legal preferences in dealing with these matters are the durable power of attorney and living will (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fields, 2002 p. 451).
It is further noted that Evan has agreed to all of his father’s wishes and has no apparent intention to reverse them. In all, the writer has covered all the important issues that arose within the case study. The legal and moral issues that this family must face have been dealt with in a very thorough manner, and this fact is covered in the writer’s response. WORKS CITED Cavanagh, J. C. , & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2002). Adult development and aging, 4th Ed. Brooks/Cole, Thompson Press.Sample Essay of Eduzaurus.com