MEDICAL CASE STUDY: A MORAL, ETHICAL AND LEGAL CONUMDRUM
Introduction
A highly emotional, ethical and medical discussion takes place which is presided over by a nurse, on the deteriorating medical condition of Dawn, a much loved wife of Kevin and mother of two adult children, Bronwyn and Daryl. Daryl is not present at the meeting however, Bronwyn’s partner, John is accompanying Bronwyn. The much heated discussion is presided over by a nurse who is representing the medical opinion relating to Dawn’s current condition and her likely future medical outcome. The key questions presented by the nurse, is centred on the highly emotional issue on the medical question as to whether to continue life support for Dawn together with the huge ethical burden …show more content…
Patient autonomy does allow for health care providers to educate the patient but does not allow the health care provider to make the decision for the patient. As Dawn’s case does not allow for direct communication with the patient other legal and ethical principals must be considered. The Erlanger Medical Ethics Orientation Manual² 2 of 12 May 2000 Section 5 paragraph 4 states in part: that the medical practitioner must consult the patients living will if there is one and, if there is no living will or the living will provides no clear guidance, the medical practitioner must consult a surrogate decision maker: one designated by an enduring power of medical attorney or a family member in order of priority. It would seem that the aspect of autonomy in Dawn’s case is provided for by her husband Kevin and/or daughter, Bronwyn, who are both present at the arranged meeting with the medical practitioner. However, the issue remains of resolving the conflicting views of Kevin and Bronwyn in relation to Dawn’s wishes and/or what is in the best interest of Dawn in this case scenario. To further assist in the process of determining the patient’s autonomy the medical practitioner must turn to ‘evidence of known prior preferences’. According to Beauchamp and Childress, 173 and American …show more content…
Non-maleficence is doing no harm. Thus, the main difference between beneficence and non-maleficence is that beneficence prompts you to help others whereas non-maleficence prompts you not to harm others. These two concepts taken together state that you must act in a manner that benefits the others and at the same time, you must not cause them any harm. The two principles are to be weighed in the balance for the good of the patient. To apply the ethical principle of beneficence to the patient, Dawn would mean to further the patient’s best interest. On the other hand, to factor in the principle of non-malelifence into Dawns care, one would refrain from anything which could potentially damage or harm Dawn. Sometimes the delicate balance between the two may collide. In the case of Dawn there are basically two (2) colliding views to the questions posed by the medical practitioner about the future care of Dawn. The first question: should life support be turned off and secondly, do we resuscitate should the situation warrant it? Of course, there is a third option which is to leave Dawn in her current condition without hope of medical
Introduction
A highly emotional, ethical and medical discussion takes place which is presided over by a nurse, on the deteriorating medical condition of Dawn, a much loved wife of Kevin and mother of two adult children, Bronwyn and Daryl. Daryl is not present at the meeting however, Bronwyn’s partner, John is accompanying Bronwyn. The much heated discussion is presided over by a nurse who is representing the medical opinion relating to Dawn’s current condition and her likely future medical outcome. The key questions presented by the nurse, is centred on the highly emotional issue on the medical question as to whether to continue life support for Dawn together with the huge ethical burden …show more content…
Patient autonomy does allow for health care providers to educate the patient but does not allow the health care provider to make the decision for the patient. As Dawn’s case does not allow for direct communication with the patient other legal and ethical principals must be considered. The Erlanger Medical Ethics Orientation Manual² 2 of 12 May 2000 Section 5 paragraph 4 states in part: that the medical practitioner must consult the patients living will if there is one and, if there is no living will or the living will provides no clear guidance, the medical practitioner must consult a surrogate decision maker: one designated by an enduring power of medical attorney or a family member in order of priority. It would seem that the aspect of autonomy in Dawn’s case is provided for by her husband Kevin and/or daughter, Bronwyn, who are both present at the arranged meeting with the medical practitioner. However, the issue remains of resolving the conflicting views of Kevin and Bronwyn in relation to Dawn’s wishes and/or what is in the best interest of Dawn in this case scenario. To further assist in the process of determining the patient’s autonomy the medical practitioner must turn to ‘evidence of known prior preferences’. According to Beauchamp and Childress, 173 and American …show more content…
Non-maleficence is doing no harm. Thus, the main difference between beneficence and non-maleficence is that beneficence prompts you to help others whereas non-maleficence prompts you not to harm others. These two concepts taken together state that you must act in a manner that benefits the others and at the same time, you must not cause them any harm. The two principles are to be weighed in the balance for the good of the patient. To apply the ethical principle of beneficence to the patient, Dawn would mean to further the patient’s best interest. On the other hand, to factor in the principle of non-malelifence into Dawns care, one would refrain from anything which could potentially damage or harm Dawn. Sometimes the delicate balance between the two may collide. In the case of Dawn there are basically two (2) colliding views to the questions posed by the medical practitioner about the future care of Dawn. The first question: should life support be turned off and secondly, do we resuscitate should the situation warrant it? Of course, there is a third option which is to leave Dawn in her current condition without hope of medical