The four ethical principals that are the base for most medical decisions will aim to provide patient satisfaction and safety as the end result. Justifying the level of importance is based on those principles as they play a big role in deciding whether life-support should be available regardless of chances of recovery.
The first principle is the respect for autonomy. This principal cites that the patient has the right to choose, which is problematic when they are in a futile state. As a solution to respect this principal, a health care proxy who is usually the family members will be provided with all the information (costs, risks, benefits) to make the decision. If the patient has not legally assigned a health care proxy, laws are made to …show more content…
Our duty is to assist somebody in need, which is the case for someone in a bad state. Futile patients are harder to accommodate because the chances of success is exceedingly poor and the options are very limited. Doctors still have the obligations of giving all they can and offer all the choices possible. The problem is by committing futile interventions it may increase a patient’s pain and discomfort, which may decrease their chances of living and give false hope to family members. On the other hand, trying to determine the best choice may be difficult because of the contradiction to the patient’s view. Their choice will be majorly based on culture, which creates 80% of the conflict between the doctor and the health care proxy. A study that occurred over a period of ten years shows that in the ICU, 90% of patients that were in a critical condition and had the chance to take life-sustaining therapy, 56% of them had 0% chance of leaving the ICU without dying. At this stage where the patient is in a futile state that they cannot benefit from further treatments and the health care proxy does not agree to the care limit of the physician, physicians write a (DNR) do-not-resuscitate order. This is justifiable because most physicians view them as hopeless …show more content…
In the case of futile patients it is hard not to hurt them because you usually end up having a choice to make between two options. First option is to let the patient go which contradict this statement. Secondly, you could put the patient on life support, which provides them with a small chance of recovering, less than one percent, but most doctors consider it impossible. Modern medicine has been steadily improving thus giving a chance to discover new ways to cure those patients. Thinking that way may bring hope to families that permit their close ones to be studied for further research. This would be the double effect meaning that inflicting pain is justified in form of treatment therefore acceptable by the non-maleficence
The first principle is the respect for autonomy. This principal cites that the patient has the right to choose, which is problematic when they are in a futile state. As a solution to respect this principal, a health care proxy who is usually the family members will be provided with all the information (costs, risks, benefits) to make the decision. If the patient has not legally assigned a health care proxy, laws are made to …show more content…
Our duty is to assist somebody in need, which is the case for someone in a bad state. Futile patients are harder to accommodate because the chances of success is exceedingly poor and the options are very limited. Doctors still have the obligations of giving all they can and offer all the choices possible. The problem is by committing futile interventions it may increase a patient’s pain and discomfort, which may decrease their chances of living and give false hope to family members. On the other hand, trying to determine the best choice may be difficult because of the contradiction to the patient’s view. Their choice will be majorly based on culture, which creates 80% of the conflict between the doctor and the health care proxy. A study that occurred over a period of ten years shows that in the ICU, 90% of patients that were in a critical condition and had the chance to take life-sustaining therapy, 56% of them had 0% chance of leaving the ICU without dying. At this stage where the patient is in a futile state that they cannot benefit from further treatments and the health care proxy does not agree to the care limit of the physician, physicians write a (DNR) do-not-resuscitate order. This is justifiable because most physicians view them as hopeless …show more content…
In the case of futile patients it is hard not to hurt them because you usually end up having a choice to make between two options. First option is to let the patient go which contradict this statement. Secondly, you could put the patient on life support, which provides them with a small chance of recovering, less than one percent, but most doctors consider it impossible. Modern medicine has been steadily improving thus giving a chance to discover new ways to cure those patients. Thinking that way may bring hope to families that permit their close ones to be studied for further research. This would be the double effect meaning that inflicting pain is justified in form of treatment therefore acceptable by the non-maleficence