Biomedical Ethics - Case Study Example

Biomedical Ethics Introduction This essay will explore and discuss the issue of biomedical ethics. It will discuss whether physicians are entitled to make a decision to sustain a patient’s life when the patient is in grave danger. It will focus on a case study where a pancreatic cancer patient by the name John. H had requested that doctors should not carry out resuscitation, and that they should not continue treating him. However, when the patient becomes critically ill with internal bleeding, he requests the doctors to step in and do something to save his life. This essay will discuss the Hippocratic Oath and the intrinsic values imposed on doctors in dealing with such situations. It will explore the aspect of euthanasia and its interrelation with the Hippocratic Oath where the doctors have to make a decision whether to save their lives or to let the patients die willingly. It will also explore the issue of legal consent obliged to the patients. The essay argues that doctors have a moral duty to save patients lives according to the Hippocratic Oath. Patients suffering from terminal illnesses sometimes give up and prefer death to pain. John’s case is an example of a patient who has given up and wants death through euthanasia. Hopelessness is one of the factors that associates with euthanasia and is a contributor of early death. It is characterized by the patient’s loss of fighting spirit due to factors such as poor prognosis, pain, undesirable effects of treatment and rapid deterioration of health and advancement of illness. Most patients with terminal cancer usually have a sense of hopelessness and in many times lose the self-control and the self-belief that they can prolong their life. Loss of control makes them to consider decisions such suicide and euthanasia (DeGrazia 42). Other Issues such extreme suffering and high medical bills can easily convince the patient to consider euthanasia. In such a case, the doctors should practice positive psychology and instill hope and optimism that they will do everything in their ability to help the patient recover and continue with life. Doctors should encourage patients to take control of all aspects of their lives and have a fighting spirit. In John’s case, Dr. R and Dr. S should have dissuaded Mr. John H from taking such a decision and that there was still a chance that John would survive. At the time John made such a decision, the two doctors had some chance of trying to improve John’s health even though it was in a deterioration state. It is the role of healthcare providers to provide patients with hope and confidence. They should motivate them that would pull through the condition and survive. This should take place even if the medical condition is in its worse state (47). Euthanasia is wrong and considered as assisted suicide. Doctors should weigh options in such a case before putting the patient’s wishes into effect. However, euthanasia is a personal decision and if a patient decides to end their lives, the doctors should not interfere. Informed consent in medical ethics aims at providing support to an individual’s autonomy. It gives an assurance that the doctors will not take the patient’s health for granted neither will they deceive or coerce them. In some cases, doctors face difficult situations, which require impromptu decisions to save the patient’s life. Sometimes the doctors allow euthanasia if the patients consent binds them. In medical ethics, medical consent cannot apply in a case where a patient requires emergence treatment or when they are frail, demented, or look confused (52). Patients like the one in John’s case may not have a stable mind due to confusion and might at times give a wrong consent. In such a case, a guardian should step in for them and talk to them about the right decisions to make. In John’s scenario, there is no evidence whether there was a guardian standing by and the doctors have to make a choice whether to save his life or not. In my opinion, the fact that John overturned his earlier decision in the last minute, should not limit the doctors in trying to save his life. In my opinion, the doctors should ignore earlier request by John and heed his current request. It is important for a doctor to save life when presented with such an opportunity. The life of John is uncertain and the two doctors should stop the bleeding and resuscitate him. They have expertise in handling such a situation and there is no reason whatsoever to deny John a second chance at life, when he has clearly with drawn his earlier remarks. The doctors should intervene, stop the bleeding, and continue with John’s treatment. In a scenario like John’s, those caring him should understand John’s state of mind at that point in time. They should consider the psychological factor and withdraw john’s first request on the basis he was not fully autonomous at that time from the psychological point of view. They should understand that John was in a point of despair and hopelessness due to deterioration of health, and could not have made a proper decision regarding treatment and resuscitation (33). This is where the Hippocratic Oath comes in. Even though doctors in some countries no longer use the oath, its significance in medicine is enormous. I think the two doctors should respect the oath and ensure that they prescribe the required regimen for the good of John, according to their ability and judgment. They should apply the dietic measures for John’s benefit. They should not harm him through neglect and should keep him from the danger he is facing. It is no doubt that in the 21st century, John’s individual autonomy comes first. In this case, John abandoned his earlier request and changed his mind; therefore, the doctors should consider his second consent. If John dies due to Doctors neglect, it will be a professional crime since the doctors had a chance to save his life, but decided to neglect him. John’s care providers should consider using the five critical guidance decisions, used by doctors when treating and caring patients, when they are close to death. The first guidance ensures provision of proper care to the patient, to enable them to live well until they recover or die. If they die then it will be death with dignity. In John’s case, the two doctors should provide high quality care to John by treating his current deteriorated state and by involving the support of those close to John. These include friends and family. The second decision guidance explores the aspect of medical consent and good medical practice. The doctors should treat the patient using proper medical techniques, if he wishes so. John has requested for intervention and the two doctors should intervene by using proper medical techniques in order to fulfill John’s wishes (76). The third guidance considers the aspect of medical ethics established to help the doctors identify the need of respecting human life and providing proper protection of their patient’s health. They should also ensure that the care of patients is the first priority. The fourth guidance takes into account the aspect of euthanasia and assisted death. The doctors should consider human rights and the legal aspect when dealing with a situation such as the one facing them in John’s case. The two doctors should understand that neglecting John in his deathbed translates to defying his rights as a human. If they consider his first request not to continue with his treatment, then the aspect of euthanasia comes in. This translates to assisted suicide. In this case, the doctors should treat John. The fifth guidance helps the patients and the public to understand the effort the doctors invest in the provision of care and treatment (76). In conclusion, this essay has explored and discussed the issue of biomedical ethics. It has discussed whether physicians are entitled to make a decision to sustain a patient’s life when the patient is in grave danger. It has laid its focus on a case study where a pancreatic cancer patient by the name John. H had requested that doctors should not carry out resuscitation, and that they should not continue treating him. This essay has discussed the aspects of euthanasia and factors associated with it. It has explored the aspect of Hippocratic Oath and its application in emergence cases. Finally, the essay has discussed the appropriate response to John’s situation and request that should guide those providing care for John, when his health has deteriorated completely. Work Cited DeGrazia, David. Biomedical Ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print. Read More