Diagnosis
The issue of people taking their own lives and doctors assisting sparks a vast debate on whether it is a good thing to do or not and the ethics surrounding it. In this case study, Alex Pandolfo is the patient who was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (This Morning, 2019). From this diagnosis, he decided to travel to a country where euthanasia is exercised (Switzerland) to end his life with the assistance of doctors. He had his friend Nate, a journalist, following him throughout the process, but he could not be involved directly due to various ethics and laws. In the YouTube video, the interviewers asked Mr. Alex several questions that touched on several aspects ranging from law regulations, ethics, and moral values (This Morning, 2019). Alex used his life experiences to make the decision. He mentioned that he saw his father struggle, contributing to his decision. Some people stated that a person making this decision might have issues related to their mental state. It is also important to understand that healthcare facilities have the obligation to allocate resources.
Describe
In this case study, ethical theories and principles such as consequentialism, utilitarianism, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence are heavily involved. The limits of medical assistance are tested in this case study. Many people ask about the limitations of healthcare workers’ services. At what point should doctors limit their services? Practicing euthanasia is one of the questionable exercises. Euthanasia has been exercised in many countries, and there is always a debate on its justification. Some moral values and ethics support and refute euthanasia. Questions on whether it is okay for doctors to assist a person in ending their life involve law and ethical principles when answering it. Doctors are meant to help people with their health issues, not to take their lives. However, patients have rights (This Morning, 2019). Therefore, to answer whether it is okay for Mr. Alex to travel to another country and end his life, we need to consider ethical theories, moral principles, human rights, and laws.
Considering that medical resources need to be carefully considered, the question of who gets what before who is essential. A person looking to end his life and a person looking to get better who deserves it more? This question is associated with healthcare policies, ethical principles, and human rights.
In the interview, the hosts stated that many people said that it is unfair to impose a duty on the doctors in this case. But Mr. Alex points out that it is no duty since they are aiding. If the doctors are involved directly, that can be termed as suicide, and various laws are broken. No one is forced to take this action, but they are going to aid the process; therefore, the issue raised by people is covered by the laws governing euthanasia (This Morning, 2019). At some point, the patient might not be able to withstand the pain, and keeping the patient under medication can cause more pain and, thus, the reason to end his life. It is the patient’s decision since it involves his life, and he is practicing his autonomy. Some patients might not be in the right state of mind to make such decisions, but in this case study, the patient is well-informed and can make such decisions. The video states that the patient cannot do the process in their home country due to the laws set. This shows the conflict between paternalism and autonomy. Paternalism limits people to certain powers that are made for their own good. The good of these limits is questionable, especially when it involves euthanasia.
Defend
In ethics, various ethical theories can be used to justify Mr. Alex’s decision. In health care, each patient has the right to make decisions on the treatment they receive. Therefore, if Mr. Alex decides that he wants to end his life through euthanasia, it is legally and ethically okay (This Morning, 2019). The power of autonomy supports the actions that Mr. Alex decided to take. He knows what he is going through and the risks associated with his medical condition. As his friend Nate explains, Mr. Alex is a very brilliant person, and therefore, for him to make that decision, it means he has thought it through, and that is the best decision. In this scenario, the question of beneficence comes into play, and since the doctors have exhausted all other alternatives, assisting the patient in ending his life is doing good that benefits the patient and improves his welfare (Chonko, 2012). Also, the non-maleficence ethical principle dictates that doctors have to ensure that no harm happens to patients. The conflict between autonomy and beneficence is debatable based on the patient. However, asking what is good for the patient when doctors exercise beneficence is important. In the case of Mr. Alex, what is good to him? Euthanasia or to keep getting medication and hoping for the best.
Nate provided an example of how the disease is affecting the patient such that he can’t recall what he had for breakfast. The mental health status of Mr. Alex is affected, and in Canadian laws, patients with mental illnesses are permitted to use the euthanasia process. As time goes by, the patient will lose more of his memory, and that will affect a lot, including his family. To avoid the must-work stage of the disease, the patient is taking precautionary measures and making this call to end his life.
Regarding utility in healthcare, doctors need to provide efficient healthcare to patients that will greatly benefit many (This Morning, 2019). If the patient decides to end his life, they make plans with their families, and this helps to ease the pain and daily struggles that they go through each day. Therefore, if the doctors decide to aid the patient in ending his life, that is efficient and brings peace to the family members. However, doctors took an oath not to take the life of a patient but to protect it. The limit at which doctors can reach, even with consent, is debatable. With the scarcity of resources, forcing patients to healthcare services is not logical.
There are several aspects to consider in this case. Mr. Alex might have considered the allocation of medical resources and services. In different healthcare facilities, there are patients with medical issues from which they cannot recover. These medical resources allocated to them can help others if they decide to follow in Mr. Alex’s footsteps. The question of who should be prioritized in medical allocation raises a debate. In most cases, medical facilities use the idea of the first to come gets served. This motto helps in deciding since no patient will come to the facility and miss getting treated. It would be unethical for a patient to be denied treatment since the resources are limited, and they are saved for a much more deserving person. Mr. Alex’s decision to practice euthanasia and fly to Switzerland is one way to help the healthcare fraternity make decisions on the allocation of resources. It might be logical to provide resources to those with life choices.
Using the consequentialism ethical theory, people’s decisions are evaluated based on the outcomes to be either good or bad. In this case study, the decision is to go to Switzerland and exercise euthanasia (Chonko, 2012). The outcome is that the patient will not suffer or experience pain during his death. Those close to him will have time to spend with him and will not see him suffer or experience medical bills that eventually will be in vain. Therefore, it is a good outcome. For the doctors, the resources that would be allocated to Mr. Alex can be allocated to another patient who needs them, and therefore, this outcome is also good. The doctors will have exercised beneficence, and the patient, Mr. Alex, will have exercised autonomy.
The patient has real-life experiences that helped him make the decision to end his life, and that means his decision is informed and not irrational. Denying him this opportunity can bring harm to the patient and cause more damage. It can also affect his family members. I think that the principle of autonomy outweighs many of the ethical principles, especially in this case. Therefore, Mr. Alex’s decision to go to Switzerland to take his life with the aid of doctors is the right decision, and it will have the best outcome for him and his family. He does not violate any rules and laws, and the doctors aiding the process are not forced to help him.
References
Chonko, L. (2012). Ethical theories. Retrieved [14th October, 2020] from https://www. dsef. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EthicalTheories. pdf.
This Morning. (2019, July 10). Terminally ill man is travelling to Switzerland to end his life | This morning [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSM8x9i9acA
write