Case 1
1. What is the ethical issue? The ethical issue is deciding between two viable courses of action: allow Mr. B to remain on the heart lung machine for 18 days or remove the heart lung machine, despite the family’s wishes.
2. What is your initial reaction to the case? My initial reaction was that it would not be unreasonable to allow Mr. B to remain on the heart lung machine for 18 days. Death would be a serious, likely, and irreversible consequence of removing the heart lung machine. The decision to remove the heart lung machine could be revisited if another patient needed the machine.
3. What are some ethical considerations for resolving/managing the case? The legal standards state that for life sustaining treatment, after the patient …show more content…
What are some ethical considerations for resolving/managing the case? There are many ethical appeals to consider, however, given the 1 page limit, I chose to discuss the most relevant ones to this case to explain my choice. According to the legal standards, a Directive to Physician is active when the patient lacks capacity and the condition is terminal or irreversible. One component of the definition to the terminal or irreversible is that the condition is incurable. In the case, the neurologist mentions “patient has a good chance of recovery with little functional deficit.” Because the patient’s condition is not incurable, the Directive to Physician does not apply. Therefore, it does not support option two (to stop treatment). The next appeal to consider is the appeals to consequences. If treatment is continued, the likely consequence is a “little functional deficit.” This consequence not as serious as death. There is no information on whether it is irreversible. If treatment is not continued, however, the consequence is death (likely, probable, and serious). The virtues of compassion and integrity and the obligation of the physician to act as the patient’s fiduciary would support doing what is in the patient’s best interest: to live a life with little functional deficit. Although there are ethical appeals to support both sides, the ethical appeals for the option to continue treatment outweighs the other ethical appeals. Other things to consider for resolving/managing the case would be to consider would be how to tell the patient’s sister the decision. I think that it would be important to be clear that we are not disrespecting the patient’s decision making right by not adhering to the Directive to Physician. It would be important to let the sister gently know that, when the condition is curable, the Directive to Physician does not
1. What is the ethical issue? The ethical issue is deciding between two viable courses of action: allow Mr. B to remain on the heart lung machine for 18 days or remove the heart lung machine, despite the family’s wishes.
2. What is your initial reaction to the case? My initial reaction was that it would not be unreasonable to allow Mr. B to remain on the heart lung machine for 18 days. Death would be a serious, likely, and irreversible consequence of removing the heart lung machine. The decision to remove the heart lung machine could be revisited if another patient needed the machine.
3. What are some ethical considerations for resolving/managing the case? The legal standards state that for life sustaining treatment, after the patient …show more content…
What are some ethical considerations for resolving/managing the case? There are many ethical appeals to consider, however, given the 1 page limit, I chose to discuss the most relevant ones to this case to explain my choice. According to the legal standards, a Directive to Physician is active when the patient lacks capacity and the condition is terminal or irreversible. One component of the definition to the terminal or irreversible is that the condition is incurable. In the case, the neurologist mentions “patient has a good chance of recovery with little functional deficit.” Because the patient’s condition is not incurable, the Directive to Physician does not apply. Therefore, it does not support option two (to stop treatment). The next appeal to consider is the appeals to consequences. If treatment is continued, the likely consequence is a “little functional deficit.” This consequence not as serious as death. There is no information on whether it is irreversible. If treatment is not continued, however, the consequence is death (likely, probable, and serious). The virtues of compassion and integrity and the obligation of the physician to act as the patient’s fiduciary would support doing what is in the patient’s best interest: to live a life with little functional deficit. Although there are ethical appeals to support both sides, the ethical appeals for the option to continue treatment outweighs the other ethical appeals. Other things to consider for resolving/managing the case would be to consider would be how to tell the patient’s sister the decision. I think that it would be important to be clear that we are not disrespecting the patient’s decision making right by not adhering to the Directive to Physician. It would be important to let the sister gently know that, when the condition is curable, the Directive to Physician does not