Week 6 Assignment: Medical Ethics Case Study Debate Group Project Instructions and Grading Rubric

Assignment Rationale:

Please refer to the course syllabus to determine what percentage this assignment is of your final course grade. The purpose of this assignment is for group members to work together to examine a medical ethics case study and demonstrate knowledge of patient rights, patient abuse, informed consent, and the ethics of legal healthcare through an online debate project. 

Assignment Objective:

Review the videos on the Dr. Kevorkian, Marlise Munoz, and Terri Schiavo. As a group choose one case study to illustrate the principles of medical ethics, an understanding of patient rights and patient abuse, knowledge of informed consent, and the ethics of legal healthcare via a group debate within the case study while clarifying the duty of the healthcare facility to ensure competence. (LO 1, 2)

Case Study Options:

Links to video for case study choices can be found below. Keep in mind these videos are just a brief introduction to the topics for familiarization purposes. There is a vast amount of reference material available for all three cases. For example, Terri Schiavo’s case went all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court for a decision. The decision is publicly available on the Supreme Court website. 

FranklinSprings. (2009, January 27). The Terry Schiavo story. 

Each group has the option of selecting another case study. Each optional choice will have to be approved by the instructor. Please send an email to the instructor and include information about the case study selection. Keep in mind there must be both ethical and legal implications present in the option. case study selected.

 

Introduction

            The molarity of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining interventions is a hot topic that attracts varied opinions from different groups of people.  The debate of withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions gained a wider view in 2003 after the case of Terri Schiavo was brought public after along court between Terry's husband and her parents. It sprouted a strong debate between different groups, some supporting the sanctity of life. In contrast, others hold that patients should have the autonomy to make informed decisions to abort life-supporting intervention, especially when terminally ill.  Whether or not to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining interventions is a contentious topic drawing partisan ideas from diverse groups of people. Some people or groups support the decision to withhold life-sustaining interventions to some terminally ill patients since there are no chances of recovering from the disease.

            Conversely, some groups of people led by religious groups argue that withholding life-supporting intervention is ethically wrong and should not be allowed.   The principle of autonomy gives the patient the right to make informed decisions to refuse life-supporting interventions. Patients who are in conditions that they cannot make such a decision might have made their intentions clear beforehand with advance notice.  Although every person hopes the best while accessing medical care, withdrawal or withholding life-sustaining interventions should be allowed for terminally ill patients ill as it ends their suffering and gives them autonomy to make a right to make informed decisions about the body.

Reasons for withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions

            The right for a patient to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining intervention remains contentious and different people see this issue differently. However, one of the reasons why withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining interventions for being allowed is that it ends suffering for the patients who are terminally ill. Certainly, terminally ill patients have minimal chances of survival, and allowing them to decide to end their life reduces pain and suffering. In most cases, terminally ill patients, especially those who have end-stage cancer, experience high pain levels. Also, most terminally ill patients are completely dependent, requiring them to receive totally assisted care from their family, which may be mentally tolling to both the patients and family members (Anderson, Gott, & Slark, 2017).  Besides, it disorients the structure of the family as the relatives are required to accommodate a terminally ill patient who has lost their independence, especially in meeting their own basic needs like eating, washing, and so on.  Another reason for withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining interventions is that it reinforces the principle of autonomy, especially in making decisions pertaining to their own healthcare. The patient's autonomy entails a "self-law-making process" of the patients. It involves a sound mind patient making decisions concerning their own body and how they prefer to be treated. However, the principle of autonomy only applies when the patient has the capacity to make a rational decision about their health.   Also, it reduces the cost of medication or cares, especially when the patient is not responsive to any treatment intervention. Most terminally ill patients are less likely to recover, especially when their disease has progressed to an irretrievable point. In such a care, a patient is forced to be kept in the life support machine or under palliative care which might be expensive for the patient family or government. Therefore, withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining intervention allows the physicians to provide care to the patients who are more likely to recover.

Reasons against withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions

On the other hand, withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions should not be allowed because it violates the commitment of the doctors and nurses to save lives.  The central role of medical practitioners like physicians and nurses is to save the lives of patients. Therefore, encouraging withdrawal of life-sustaining intervention may interfere with their key roles to protect patients.    Secondly, it discourages the efforts of searching for new cures and treatments for terminally ill people.   The medical research team focuses on finding new curative interventions. It disorients them to find a treatment invention for terminal illnesses, especially when the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment interventions is normalized.   It disregards the fact that a patient is more likely to recover unexpectedly.  There are some chances that a patient may recover from a terminal illness as not expected, and thereby withholding care denies such a patient a second chance to survive.  Lastly, it may lead to care that is worse for the terminally ill. For instance, denying a patient food and water makes them suffer due to dehydration and lack of food.

            The physician has an obligation to deliver compassionate and safe care to the patients.  Therefore, it is morally wrong to allow doctor-assisted suicide.  Withholding life-sustaining intervention does not align with the health professional virtue (Lobo et al., 2017).  The doctors are supposed to hold a positive doctor to a patient relationship, which promotes patient recovery.  The doctors should come with better ways of managing the patient's pain and thus improving their survival.  Modern technology helps health providers develop better and effective ways of managing patient health conditions (Soar et al., 2019).  Secondly, it can be difficult for the doctors to identify the genuine case of assisted suicide, or the patient is coerced by relatives, business partners, or any other member of the community.  The exercise may result in some people losing their life involuntarily.  For the doctors to avoid such scenarios, they need to scrutinize the motive of the patients.  Lastly, it is against the social duty to preserve and protect life.  Society has a fundamental duty of protecting and preserving life.  So, when the doctors help the patients to carry out suicide, they violate society's fundamental duty (Lobo et al., 2017). 

Conclusion

            Whether or not to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining interventions remain a datable topic.  With the establishment of the principle of autonomy, it is the responsibility of the physicians or any other health provider to respect the patient's decisions. Although physicians should find alternative ways of addressing patient health needs, they should respect their decisions.

Right to Die

1 Introduction

2 Reasons for withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions

3 Reasons against withdrawing or withhold life-sustaining interventions

4 Conclusion