Introduction
The ethical questions surrounding withdrawing support to the critically ill at the end of life require serious consideration to ensure that appropriate action is taken. This paper looks at the moral and ethical dilemma surrounding the decision to withdraw a life support machine for an 84-year-old man with COPD. This study will look into Mr. Martinez’s standards, quality of life, and decisions made by the family concerned regarding their ethical principles guiding them in arriving at their critical choice.
Patient’s Directives
Mr. Martinez explicitly communicated his preference for the exclusion of resuscitation treatments by requesting a written Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order to be included in the medical documents. As Beauchamp and Childress (2019) acknowledged, autonomy grants the patient the authority to make decisions regarding their medical treatment. This advanced directive aligns with the idea of autonomy. Respect for autonomy is a critical ethical concept that emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the preferences and decisions of individuals. The case of DNR for Mr. Martinez constitutes an instruction for physicians to consider when determining the mode of emergency end-of-life medical care to offer.
Quality of Life
Mr. Martinez’s comfort level needs to be evaluated to examine if it will be possible to conduct the proposed life support measures—state of the environment for the quality of life considerations. A comprehensive assessment of the state of wellness in which the person is placed should be undertaken, considering all their physical, mental and emotional states. Moreover, increasing the oxygen level involuntarily may cause respiratory pain and cast doubt on the correspondence with the principle of beneficence that requires caring for a person’s well-being. Thus, in such a situation, medical experts must make an informed decision that balances the positive effects of life support and possible negative impacts on Mr. Martinez’s health.
Family’s Stated Preferences
It is equally important to acknowledge the views of the family while deciding on matters concerning end-of-life care. As such, it is crucial to inform Mr. Martinez’s family that he does not wish to receive cardiac resuscitation and other resuscitative treatments. It is also critical to involve the family in the treatment plan; this ensures that their ideas and beliefs are considered during the decision-making process. On the other hand, it is also crucial to consider the patient’s autonomy rather than the views held by the patient’s family on issues that contradict the patient’s expressed demands. (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Moral Issues Associated with Limiting Life Support
The case of Mr. Martinez gives rise to specific ethical considerations about the choice of terminating life-sustaining measures. The inadvertent increase in oxygen levels, leading to respiratory discomfort, raises concerns about the ethical responsibility of healthcare professionals to rectify errors promptly. A challenging ethical quandary occurs when one seeks to find a middle ground between the moral imperative to prevent harm (non-maleficence) and the patient’s autonomy and expressed desires (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). The complexity of decisions about end-of-life care is underscored by the tension that arises from balancing the principles of beneficence and autonomy.
Ethical Principles Relevant to Decision-Making
Mr. Martinez’s case necessitates examining several ethical factors to reach a morally justifiable verdict. Considering Mr. Martinez’s unambiguous advice against resuscitation, prioritizing autonomy is crucial, as previously stated. When evaluating the potential advantages and risks of life-sustaining treatments, healthcare professionals must consider the principles of promoting well-being and avoiding harm. Beauchamp and Childress (2019) argue that justice is crucial as it ensures fair and impartial decision-making that considers the patient’s rights and significant values.
Essential Considerations
You must consider the consequences, causes, and conflicting interests due to Mr. Martinez’s respiratory failure. The moral imperative to promptly rectify errors and the duty to uphold the patient’s autonomy may clash due to the careless mistake made while adjusting his oxygen levels. Analyzing the decision to transfer Mr Martinez to critical care is essential, considering the established ethical norms and the potential benefits and burdens for the patient.
Conclusion
The thorough ethical analysis of Mr. Martinez’s situation reveals the intricate connection between autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice when making judgments about end-of-life treatment. The patient’s directives, concerns over the quality of life, family preferences, and moral dilemmas associated with limiting life support necessitate a thoughtful approach that informs ethical deliberations. Healthcare practitioners are responsible for navigating these complexities while upholding their commitment to the principles that define ethical healthcare practice.
References:
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
write