Legal Reasoning

     End of life care brings with it many obstacles that healthcare workers will have to face when working with their patients. One way for the healthcare worker to ensure that they are staying within the legal boundaries of what is happening, is by looking at legal reasoning. Legal reasoning focuses on how people develop a sense of legal consciousness and evaluate the appropriateness of formal, codified rules in society (Cohn, Bucolo, Rebellon, & Van Gundy, 2010). Legal reasoning helps people to distinguish between what is right within society versus what they think they should do. It can help them to make those decisions where they may want to act in one way, but could instead find themselves making the wrong decisions.

            Legal interpretation in this case study is based upon the interpretation of who is and who is not considered a healthcare employee who can sign the necessary papers for a second opinion. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows for the fact that the attending physician may feel more comfortable collaborating in the overall care of a patient with a colleague who is willing to provide the prescription under the Oregon Act (The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally-Ill Oregonians, “Physicians”, 2008). Interpretation of this law comes in the fact of who the attending physician considers to be someone who can has prescriptive authority within the state of Oregon.

Coherence for the law comes from being able to know exactly what the law states. Though Ms. Woods as a nurse practitioner in Oregon does have prescriptive authority, she is not allowed to act as a consult for this case. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act does not allow nurse practitioners, even those with prescriptive authority to serve as the attending or consulting physician (The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally-Ill Oregonians, “Other Professionals”, 2008).

            The logic in legal reasoning stems from the being able to see clearly what the law is and how the law works. The rule of law requires that similar cases should be decided similarly, that each case should be decided on its merits, and that decision-making processes should comply with applicable rules of procedure and evidence (Walker, 2012). This case may not provide any kinds of studies of other cases connecting the nurse practitioner to physician assisted suicide. The law is cut and dry about the role of the nurse practitioner and what they may or may not be able to do. Ms. Woods however, may be able to look at other situations where ethical reasoning comes into play regarding end of life decisions and how the nurse is able to help the patient with their own decision making. Case law could be used in this case to be able to help Ms. Woods know the legal actions that are taken against nurse practitioners who are involved in performing restricted acts regarding physician assisted suicide.

      Legal analysis is done when all of the pieces of legal reasoning are put together. For this case study legal interpretation says that the attending physician may want to collaborate with a colleague who has prescriptive authority. However, when we look further into the law and are able to understand what it says, we find out that the nurse practitioner who has prescriptive authority is not allowed to act as a consult for the case. Case studies and case laws for physician assisted suicide may only offer little insight into the ethical reasoning of how to help a patient or what action has been taken in the past by other nurse practitioners. Analysis should prove to Ms. Woods that she may not act as she wishes in regards to the patient care provisions in physician assisted suicide.