To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Within the realm of healthcare, ethical dilemmas frequently arise, necessitating careful consideration of principles and values to arrive at the most morally sound decisions. In this particular case, three crucial ethical issues come to the forefront: ethical distress, ethical dilemma, and locus of control. This essay will delve into the complexities of this scenario, examining the ethical problems at hand and proposing a course of action that aligns with ethical principles and the best interests of the patient.
Ethical distress is undeniably a central ethical concern in this case.
The patient's strong desire to remain on a ventilator, despite potential consequences, places her in direct conflict with the recommendations of her primary care physician and two close friends. She has made her wishes unequivocally clear by actively engaging with the medical staff and consistently responding with a resolute "no" when asked about the removal of life-sustaining tubes. Her autonomy and right to self-determination are at the heart of this ethical distress.
However, her primary care physician and friends believe that her current state of confusion clouds her judgment.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Bipolar Disorder
4.7 (346)
“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”
They assert that, had she been in full possession of her faculties, she would never have consented to continue in such a condition. This divergence of perspectives intensifies the ethical distress, as it pits the patient's autonomy against concerns for her well-being and the intentions she expressed in her living will.
Further complicating matters is the presence of an ethical dilemma.
The critical care team, composed of medical professionals, emphasizes the principle of beneficence. They argue that acting in the patient's best interests requires maintaining life support measures, as she exhibits signs of potential recovery. Conversely, the patient's primary care physician staunchly upholds the principle of autonomy, rooted in the patient's original living will.
This ethical clash underscores the challenging nature of balancing beneficence, which seeks to do good for the patient, with autonomy, which respects the patient's right to make decisions about her own body and healthcare. The resolution of this dilemma requires a comprehensive examination of the patient's capacity to make informed choices and a thorough evaluation of her living will, given her history of manic depression.
The locus of control in this complex ethical scenario primarily rests with the patient's primary care physician. He plays a pivotal role in shaping the course of action and advocating for the patient's autonomy, as reflected in her living will. This locus of control becomes evident when the physician, with support from a psychiatrist, takes the initiative to transfer the patient to another healthcare facility to fulfill her wishes, despite resistance from the critical care team.
While the critical care team believes in the patient's potential for recovery, the primary care physician's convictions drive the decision-making process. This physician-centric locus of control underscores the ethical tensions within the medical team and highlights the need for a comprehensive ethical analysis to guide the best course of action.
Three key ethical principles come to the forefront in this case: beneficence, fidelity, and autonomy. Each principle holds significant relevance within the context of the patient's situation.
Beneficence, often associated with the concept of doing good, is highlighted by the critical care team's argument for maintaining life support. They believe that their actions align with the patient's best interests, as they see potential for her recovery. This principle emphasizes the importance of promoting the patient's well-being, even if it involves contentious decision-making.
Fidelity, the principle of faithfulness and loyalty, also plays a pivotal role. The critical care team, in their advocacy for the patient's current wishes, demonstrates fidelity to their commitment to provide the best care possible. They maintain their allegiance to the patient's autonomy and right to make decisions regarding her healthcare.
Autonomy, the cornerstone of patient-centered care, is central to this ethical dilemma. The patient's autonomy, as reflected in her living will, initially prioritizes her right to refuse life-sustaining measures. However, her current wishes, expressed while she is alert and oriented, complicate the ethical landscape. The ethical analysis must carefully weigh these principles to reach a morally sound decision.
Deontology, a moral framework that emphasizes duty and principles, provides a valuable lens through which to analyze this ethical dilemma. It involves the consideration of duty, the intrinsic value of adhering to principles over outcomes, the focus on individual moral agents, and the need to maintain emotional neutrality.
In this case, the predominant ethical principle is autonomy, which demands the respect for the patient's current wishes. Her alert and oriented state, interactions with the healthcare staff, and consistent "no" responses regarding the removal of life support affirm her autonomy in the present moment. Even though she had been diagnosed with manic depression when she executed her living will, her current capacity to make decisions must be acknowledged.
Deontology underscores the duty to honor the patient's autonomy over beneficence, as her most recent wishes supersede her prior living will. While the primary care physician may assert that the living will is binding, the patient's alert and oriented state casts doubt on the validity of her earlier decision, especially given her history of mental health concerns.
Furthermore, the absence of close family members or relatives intensifies the significance of the patient's autonomy as the primary ethical focus. In this case, the patient is the sole stakeholder, and her current well-being and desires take precedence.
Teleology, a moral framework centered on the outcomes and consequences of actions, offers an alternative perspective. It considers the predominant ethical principle, the primacy of outcomes over duties, the greater good of the "whole," and the necessity of emotional detachment.
Within a teleological framework, beneficence emerges as the primary ethical principle. The emphasis shifts toward achieving the best possible outcome for the patient. In this case, the outcome-focused approach may involve disregarding the patient's living will, given her diagnosed manic depression, and preserving her life-support measures, as per her current wishes.
However, the concept of stakeholders becomes crucial in teleological analysis. The patient, her primary care physician, her two best friends, and the critical care team are all stakeholders, each with varying degrees of vested interest. The patient herself stands to gain the most from the decision—either the continuation of her life or the execution of her prior living will. The primary care physician's stake in the matter may be twofold: adherence to ethical principles or personal frustration.
Despite these considerations, teleology ultimately aligns with the course of action that yields the most favorable outcome for the patient. It acknowledges her current autonomy, emotional state, and expressed wishes as paramount.
This ethical dilemma exhibits several unique aspects that set it apart from more conventional cases. One distinctive feature is the patient's contradictory decisions over time. Initially, she documented her desire to avoid extraordinary life-saving measures in her living will. However, she now adamantly opposes the removal of life support, actively engaging with medical staff and providing coherent responses.
Another unique element is the patient's history of manic depression, a mental health condition that may have influenced her previous living will. This condition raises doubts about the validity and stability of her earlier decision, especially in light of her current capacity for decision-making.
Furthermore, the absence of immediate family members or close relatives accentuates the distinctiveness of this case. The patient's primary care physician, two best friends, and the critical care team play significant roles, but the ultimate focus remains on the patient herself.
Considering the complexities of this ethical dilemma and the ethical frameworks applied, a proposed course of action emerges. To address this situation ethically and responsibly, several steps should be taken:
By following this course of action, the healthcare team can navigate the ethical complexities of the situation while prioritizing the patient's autonomy and well-being. It allows for a thorough evaluation of her current mental state and the validity of her living will, all while adhering to ethical principles and the duty of patient advocacy.
In conclusion, this case presents a challenging ethical dilemma characterized by ethical distress, a clash between beneficence and autonomy, and a locus of control vested in the patient's primary care physician. The ethical principles of beneficence, fidelity, and autonomy guide the analysis of this complex scenario.
Applying deontology underscores the primacy of autonomy, emphasizing the importance of respecting the patient's current wishes, especially in her alert and oriented state. Teleology, on the other hand, leans toward prioritizing beneficence, striving for the best outcome for the patient while considering the interests of stakeholders.
Unique aspects of this case, including the patient's contradictory decisions and history of manic depression, further complicate the ethical landscape. However, a proposed course of action, involving the convening of an ethics committee and comprehensive assessments, offers a path toward ethical resolution.
In the end, the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence should guide the decision-making process, ensuring that the patient's current wishes are upheld while safeguarding her well-being.
An Analysis of Ethical Issues in a Complex Healthcare Dilemma. (2016, Jul 12). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/ethical-analysis-of-case-study-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
