Margo is a cheerful Alzheimer’s patient. Each day she listened to the same music, paints the same picture, and randomly reads from the same book. She has no memories of her earlier life or even what had happened earlier on any given day, and she cannot make any new memories. When Margo learned of her Alzheimer’s diagnosis she filled out a living will making it clear that if an infection or other condition came during her slide into dementia, she did not want to be treated. On rare occasions Margo has lucid moments and expresses that she wishes to live and wants anything to be done to prolong her life. The moral questions, does Margo have the right to change her mind? Is it justifiable for Margo’s physicians to refuse to honor her advance directive
…show more content…
This principle-approach offers an alternative use to ethical theories in a way of addressing moral questions. The principle of autonomy is rooted in the importance of an individual’s freedom and choice. This tells us that Margo has the right to make her own informed decision about her health care. The principle of beneficence commands that health care professionals are to do good for their patients in promoting the welfare and well-being. Margo’s health care professionals should aim they’re care to what benefits Margo’s well-being while preventing or removing harm. Personally, from an ethical standpoint I holds autonomy in well-known regard, the Margo’s wishes should be followed. I feel this is determinedly true when the primary issue is one of quality of life. Informed patients can only truly weigh on the life-sustaining benefits of life-sustaining …show more content…
This sensitive issue has special significance for advance directives, because they do not represent concurrent or coexisting decisions. If explanations are required but not supplied by a document, there is no opportunity for further discussion, the document may be valid. On the other hand, if explanation is desirable but not mandatory, the document will be considered valid and applied in such an extent as is possible. Explanations will simply assist in its interpretation. Furthermore, Margo’s advance directive shouldn’t need further explanation due to her simply stating in reference to her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, she wishes to not receive life-sustaining treatments when the time
This principle-approach offers an alternative use to ethical theories in a way of addressing moral questions. The principle of autonomy is rooted in the importance of an individual’s freedom and choice. This tells us that Margo has the right to make her own informed decision about her health care. The principle of beneficence commands that health care professionals are to do good for their patients in promoting the welfare and well-being. Margo’s health care professionals should aim they’re care to what benefits Margo’s well-being while preventing or removing harm. Personally, from an ethical standpoint I holds autonomy in well-known regard, the Margo’s wishes should be followed. I feel this is determinedly true when the primary issue is one of quality of life. Informed patients can only truly weigh on the life-sustaining benefits of life-sustaining …show more content…
This sensitive issue has special significance for advance directives, because they do not represent concurrent or coexisting decisions. If explanations are required but not supplied by a document, there is no opportunity for further discussion, the document may be valid. On the other hand, if explanation is desirable but not mandatory, the document will be considered valid and applied in such an extent as is possible. Explanations will simply assist in its interpretation. Furthermore, Margo’s advance directive shouldn’t need further explanation due to her simply stating in reference to her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, she wishes to not receive life-sustaining treatments when the time