Ending Life Ethics - Essay Example

Ending Life Ethics Biomedical ethics refers to the principles that govern the morals, judgment and values in medicine. There are many principles that govern the behavior and action of doctors and other medical staff in the profession. Ethical issues will always be prevalent as long as the medical practice continues. In most cases, different ethical principles apply to a single case and yield different results. Ethical dilemma arises when, for example, the values of the hospital (medical profession) conflict with the values of the patient or his family members. Such cases require the use of the key principles that will assist one in understanding and responding to the cases. Doctors choose the best course of action to take on patient with the help of these principles. The case that the book presents is an example of such conflict of different principles. The patient, John H, has his personal reservations regarding the treatment that he prefers. He had requested no further treatment on him and that he should not undergo resuscitation. John’s condition worsens, which induces him to request his doctor to do something to help him. John suffers from internal bleeding, and if the doctors do not attend to his condition, he will lose his life to blood loss. His personal doctor, Dr. W. believes that they should respect John’s original decision and administer no treatment on him. However, the oncologist, Dr. R. believes that the best interest of saving John’s life should take precedence over his initial decision of no additional treatment (DeGrazia 56). The case presents a conflict between the preferences of the patient and the values of the medical profession. Dilemma exists about the best response to give to the case and the patient's request that will guide the doctors in making their decisions. The doctors need to understand the principles involved in the above case before deciding on the best response. The case presents a conflict between the values of autonomy and beneficence. Autonomy refers to the right of patients to make informed decisions about the medical care they prefer. This right mandates patients to choose various treatment options and also decline any medical treatment on them. Beneficence is a principle that requires doctors and other medical staff to make decisions that will improve the welfare of the patient. The two principles are related because beneficence requires patients to make informed decisions and physicians to respect the decisions. It also requires physicians to guide patients against making decisions that are contrary to their best interest. The principle of autonomy can help the two doctors to respond to John’s condition. Doctors should guide patients in making their decisions by informing them about the consequences of their decisions. The two doctors failed to honor this principle by failing to inform John about the consequences of administering no treatment on him. The patient has the right to access relevant information from doctors to guide him in making his decisions. However, the two doctors should use this principle and communicate with John about the consequences of his decision. A mentally fit patient has the right to withhold his earlier decision. Dr. W. respects John’s will that he should not receive any additional treatment. This conflicts with the principle of beneficence, which requires that their actions be directed towards the best interest of John. The best interest in this case is saving his life. Furthermore, John had withheld his previous decision and requested the doctors to do something. The doctors should respect this not because it is demand of the principle of beneficence but because it is the wish of the patient. However, this will raise another question on whether the decision of a patient who is under the influence of health conditions should replace his original decision or preference. John’s second decision is as a result of despair due to his health condition. It is common for circumstances and other conditions to affect decisions that people make. Probably, John’s pain and fear of death influences his second decision. Doctors and medical staff should assess the influences of decision-making among patients before taking actions. The decisions, whether they are results of influence by other factors, should always be to the best interest of the patient. John’s second decision is influenced by pain and fear of death but is also to the best interest of saving his life (DeGrazia 68). Therefore, it implies that physicians should respect his second decision because it is for the John’s help. If a patient makes a decision that is contrary to his best interest, it is the responsibility of physicians to guide him or respect his initial decision. The relationship between John and the two doctors brings in the issue of paternalism. Paternalism is the interference with individual autonomy of patients. The welfare of the person whose autonomy is interfered with guides the principle of paternalism. Paternalism has a close relationship with beneficence because it requires physicians to identify the best interests of patients. However, the principle conflicts with autonomy because it allows doctors to prefer a patient’s welfare to his initial decisions. Dr. R. applies this principle because he believes they should respect John’s second decision because it will help in saving his life (DeGrazia 102). Doctors and other medical staff should observe the principles behind these ethics to help them in solving ethical dilemma. Application of these principles requires clear communication channels between all the parties involved. It is clear that patients make decisions out of some influences that are beyond their control. Physicians should guide the patients in making their decisions. Patients have the right to use medical information to make their decisions but doctors should make sure that the decisions made acknowledge all consequences. Improving the welfare of patients should be the motive of all doctors. This is the reason that influences doctors in the case above to ignore John’s initial decision. By doing so, they are acting to his best interest of saving his life. Physicians should be able to gauge the conditions that influence the decision of a patient and use their knowledge in determining the viability of decisions made. They should guide patients in making decisions regarding their health conditions and preferences. Work cited DeGrazia, David. Biomedical Ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print. Read More