Patient Ethical Dilemma Case

A conflict between a physician and patient on the course of treatment is a common topic that arises in bioethical conversation. This case explores the topic of paternalistic choices dealing with patient autonomy and when it is ethically reasonable for a physician to intervene and decide as to whether an individual is competent to make decisions about their own care. The patient in the case, Mr. Howe was asked to make a lifesaving medical decision while in duress and not fully understanding the procedure and the potential outcome if he refused. In this case I believe the physician made the correct decision to intubate Mr. Howe against his explicit instructions not to. The physician made a determination that the patient was not accurately expressing his wishes as if he was of sound mind.
This is decision to override the patient’s wishes is consistent with Dworkin’s thoughts that paternalism is only justified to preserve a wider range of autonomy in the person (p.??). In this case, …show more content…
Act Utilitarianism implies that, acts should be deemed moral if the outcome results in the most relative good produced (Vaughn, p.35). In this case the doctor’s paternalistic decision to intubate the patient would be seen as moral because it would result in the patient surviving this would not only make the patient happy but also the wife and daughter, this would override the fact that the patient’s autonomy was removed. With Kantian Deontology morality is centered around following a rational moral rule that is applicable out of a sense of duty (Vaughn, p.37-38). In this case the physician has a duty to care for the patient and applying skills from medical training decides that the patient is not competent to make decisions, thus relinquishing his autonomy and it is now the duty of the physician to restore the patient’s