PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 3 Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case PHI FPX 3200 Ethics in Health Care
Prof. Name:
Date
Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case
Many patients with chronic illnesses aspire to return to their normal lives after being diagnosed with a terminal condition, but this is not always feasible. Active and passive euthanasia provide patients with the opportunity to live out their remaining days on their own terms. This paper will explore the patient’s directive, quality of life, and family preferences. Additionally, I will discuss the moral dilemmas that arise when considering the limitation of life support, how ethical principles inform decision-making, and the significant implications, justifications, and conflicts of interest that may emerge in relation to this case study.
Patient’s Directive
Mr. Martinez is a seventy-five-year-old man suffering from chronic pulmonary disease. He is currently hospitalized due to an upper respiratory infection. He and his wife have discussed their wishes and agreed that they do not want any extraordinary measures taken to prolong his life. Should his condition deteriorate, he has expressed a desire not to be resuscitated. His healthcare records include an advance directive, which designates a person of his choosing to make decisions on his behalf if he becomes unable to do so (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018).
Quality of Life and Family Preferences
Mr. Martinez has a history of respiratory issues and is presently receiving treatment for an upper respiratory infection, including antibiotics, fluids, and oxygen. An accidental increase in his oxygen levels led to respiratory failure, and the only way to reverse this condition would be through life-saving interventions. Both Mr. Martinez and his wife have agreed that they do not wish for measures to be taken to save his life if his condition worsens. The healthcare team should honor these wishes, even if it conflicts with their ethical and clinical judgment, potentially resulting in the patient’s death (Gedge, Gianomini, & Cook, 2007). Family members should also respect the patient’s preferences regarding end-of-life care. In this case, Mrs. Martinez understands and supports her husband’s decision to forgo extraordinary measures. Family members who may disagree should set aside their differences and respect the patient’s wishes.
Moral Issues and Ethical Principles
Numerous moral issues influence the patient’s decision and the manner in which healthcare providers approach the situation. Healthcare professionals are trained and have taken an oath to do no harm (Shmerling, 2020). They are also committed to providing the best possible care to improve patient outcomes through interventions such as respiratory support, surgery, medication, and experimental treatments when necessary. Advocates for directive action argue that patients should have the choice to determine whether to continue treatment when a return to a normal quality of life seems unlikely or impossible. Conversely, some believe that discontinuing treatment, even if it aligns with the patient’s wishes, violates the sanctity of life.
The Principle of Respect for Autonomy is the ethical principle that supports a patient’s right to refuse life support. This principle asserts that individuals must respect decisions made by others regarding their own lives and fates. To honor others’ autonomy, we must also respect their choices to withhold life support (Gracyk, 2012). Patients often experience fatigue from pain and suffering due to experimental treatments, tests, and examinations. They may feel embarrassed and depressed about their inability to care for themselves, both physically and financially. Additionally, some patients do not wish to burden their friends and loved ones. All these factors can influence a patient’s decision to withhold life support. Healthcare providers, friends, and family can offer support and empathy while a patient navigates this decision, but they must also respect the patient’s choice, regardless of their personal agreement or understanding of it (Welie & Have, 2014).