Mr. Jones, age 25, burned over 65 percent of his body in a propane gas explosion. He was taken to the burn Treatment Unit of Parkland Hospital in Dallas. He demanded the doctor stop the treatment and to let him go home and die. The treatment was full burn therapy. HE had several fingers amputated, removal of his right eye, skin grafts, and nutritional fluid support provided. The doctors did not stop the treatment and he was discharged totally blind, with minimal use of his hands, badly scarred, and dependent on others to assist in personal functions. This case is important because we either have to agree or disagree with the choices made by the physician. I will argue that I disagree with the choices made by the doctor because the case says
…show more content…
Mr. Jones repeatedly insisted that the treatment be discontinued and that he be allowed to die, but the doctors continued the wound care, skin grafts, and provided nutritional and fluid support. I will argue that the physician in this case did not act justifiable because he refused the patient’s bill of rights to refuse treatment. The patients’ bill of rights was made in 1973, which allowed the patients the right to refuse treatment, right to consent, right to an informed consent and right to religious beliefs. The patents bill of rights also has maxims which are right claims and some examples are “always get informed consent before surgery” and “a patient’s medical information must be kept confidential”. This code of ethics wasn’t upheld because of the situation or situationalism. In situationalism, a …show more content…
The physician went by the consequentialist ethics, which means that they focus on producing benefits and avoiding harms, doing good and avoiding evil. The Action theory can be applied to this because the action made by the physician can be right because he did not let the patient do harm to himself by suicide. If the doctor let Mr. Jones go home to die by suicide, he is potentially doing harm to himself. The physician could have also had The doctor did however have a choice to continue the treatment to let Mr. Jones have a high probability of survival but if he stopped the treatment it would most certainly ended in death. Mr. Jones was rushed to the hospital because of his third degree burns and in the principals of medical ethics: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care. We also have a moral standing that he is human and that he has a right to live life. I would have liked to known if he had family, friends, career, and religious beliefs. His religious beliefs could have let him know what medical care was allowed to him through his religion. The physician that way could not have respected his rights through religion which would help me argue this case. (Veatch, R. M., 2003)I don’t think Mr. Jones was aware of how he can make his life better through counceling and
Mr. Jones repeatedly insisted that the treatment be discontinued and that he be allowed to die, but the doctors continued the wound care, skin grafts, and provided nutritional and fluid support. I will argue that the physician in this case did not act justifiable because he refused the patient’s bill of rights to refuse treatment. The patients’ bill of rights was made in 1973, which allowed the patients the right to refuse treatment, right to consent, right to an informed consent and right to religious beliefs. The patents bill of rights also has maxims which are right claims and some examples are “always get informed consent before surgery” and “a patient’s medical information must be kept confidential”. This code of ethics wasn’t upheld because of the situation or situationalism. In situationalism, a …show more content…
The physician went by the consequentialist ethics, which means that they focus on producing benefits and avoiding harms, doing good and avoiding evil. The Action theory can be applied to this because the action made by the physician can be right because he did not let the patient do harm to himself by suicide. If the doctor let Mr. Jones go home to die by suicide, he is potentially doing harm to himself. The physician could have also had The doctor did however have a choice to continue the treatment to let Mr. Jones have a high probability of survival but if he stopped the treatment it would most certainly ended in death. Mr. Jones was rushed to the hospital because of his third degree burns and in the principals of medical ethics: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care. We also have a moral standing that he is human and that he has a right to live life. I would have liked to known if he had family, friends, career, and religious beliefs. His religious beliefs could have let him know what medical care was allowed to him through his religion. The physician that way could not have respected his rights through religion which would help me argue this case. (Veatch, R. M., 2003)I don’t think Mr. Jones was aware of how he can make his life better through counceling and