Introduction
The objective is to analyze critically the application of medical ethics in solving patient-practitioner dilemmas in scenarios where the patient in question is incapacitated to make a decision in the healthcare practice. Three case scenarios that call for an ethical consultation concerning medical intervention forms the focus of the paper.
The case is an exemplification of autonomy and consent. The scenario calls into question the extent to which a medical practitioner whether an intern, a resident or a certified physician can be rational in balancing the aspects of patient consent, beneficence, respect and mandate to the role of doing the best for the patient and euthanasia. The resident has to find a way to get informed medical-ethical consultation.
The case, as much as there is consent by the patient as presented by the wife, may have stipulated and recommended medical alternatives. One of them is to provide a less expensive, and sophisticated life support program. The patient can be provided with basic home based mechanical ventilation.
In my view, a normative approach to assisted suicide with patient or surrogate consent may be a better option; than to allow the patient to continue suffering and financially constraining the immediate keen. Also, scenarios such as the case of no survival chance for a patient is euthanasia is necessary as projected by utilitarian argument.
The case deals with an expectant couple with three children whose family is plagued by downs syndrome. The predicament lies on the baby having the downs syndrome, the financial constraints evoked by raising a fourth child who calls for abortion, both parents are against the idea. The husband is even more convinced that child deserves a chance to live. Medically, ethics state everyone has a right to live.
The possibilities to salvage the situation is to let the child be born and deal with the syndrome and upbringing later. In my view, children with the syndrome are capable of all affections, feelings and life of a healthy child. Therefore, the baby should be born. The option proves to be better since it gives the child a chance to live. Abortion concerning moral and life argument are wrong, therefore, should be avoided.
The case illuminates on limits to medicine. The child at five years has the physical and mental capability of a six months old. The condition evoked by encephalopathy does not change with age. Growing up like that will only pose a bigger predicament of caring for the child. The medical possibility and ethics are that intervention is not necessary. The child can grow up with care from both parents and nurse and later be institutionalized.
Limits to what medicine can do include violating autonomy rights of the practitioner and consent rights of a patient to treatment. Though consent by the patient is medically required to impair physical growth, the surrogates, and the physicians in my view may stop the growth of the beneficence of the parents and the life of the child. By allowing the child to grow up in that state, problems associated with maturation such as menstruation and pregnancy will pose a challenge. Therefore, impairing physical growth is necessary than allowing growth.
Bibliography
Lawton, Julia. "Gaining and maintaining consent: ethical concerns raised in a study of dying patients." Qualitative Health Research 11, no. 5 (2001): 693-705.
Roberts, Laura Weiss, and Brian Roberts. "Psychiatric research ethics: an overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness." Biological psychiatry 46, no. 8 (1999): 1025-1038.
Stineman, Margaret G., and David W. Musick. "Protection of human subjects with disability: Guidelines for research." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 82 (2001): S9-S14.
