In the process of their work, doctors regularly encounter dilemmas that are not only purely therapeutic but also moral. The most extreme case is the issue of life and death when specialists have to solve issues related to the continuation of human life. The purpose of this essay is to consider the moral and ethical aspects of the given situation related to the decision to limit life support.
The issue associated with making this choice is related to the concept of passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the legal termination or refusal of life-supporting treatment at the request of the patient. An example of such a solution is the case considered in this essay linked to the case of Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martines is 75-years old patient with an obstructive pulmonary disease treated in the hospital due to an upper respiratory tract infection.
It could be said that the patient didn’t have a high quality of life because of breathing problems and frequent respiratory infections (“COPD,” 2017). At the beginning of the treatment, he requested that CPR must not be performed should he require it, and his wife also supported this decision. Over time, Mr. Martinez’s condition steadily improved, and there was no direct threat to his life. If the course of treatment were continued, then there would be a high probability that Mr. Martinez would have completely recovered.
It could have been possible if there was not an increase in the level of oxygen supply, which led to respiratory failure. At this moment, the question ceases to be purely medical and goes into the field of making morally complex decisions. Doctors have a choice: to save a patient who is in serious condition or to take into account his desire and not take any action. The dilemma with limiting life support is the contradiction between the medical principles and the needs of a specific person.
In the case of terrible distress, there is no time for hesitation; however, this only means that this topic should be thought out in advance after receiving recommendations from the family. This case, firstly, requires a more transparent approach to the formulation of CPR. It is a set of measures aimed at restoring the body’s vital functions and removing it from the state of clinical death (“What is CPR?,” 2020). Since this set of procedures affects precisely the process of resuscitation and not the life-supporting, the situation with Mr. Martinez should be resolved in favor of helping him. Thus, the ethical principles that are most relevant to this problem consist of non-contradiction to the direct desire of the person and strict adherence to the wording.
It should be noted that this problem arose as a result of the malfunction of the equipment. Assisting the patient, in this case, is a justified correction of the hospital’s fault, which led to this tragedy, and it does not contradict the refusal to resuscitate. On the other hand, the inactivity of doctors in this situation can result in conflict, since the possible death of Mr. Martinez will be connected with a medical error. Thus, the patient should be given all possible assistance not only to save him but also to avoid any conflicts, up to moving him to intensive care.
The issue of assisting is especially acute for doctors since their profession itself implies that they must help people. However, in this case, one should still take into account the wishes of the person himself, if that was done in an adequate state. Applying this principle in the case of Mr. Martinez, the medical intervention is necessary and is the only right decision since it does not contradict his request. Thus, we can conclude that the adoption of complex moral and medical decisions should be, first of all, consistent with the desire of the patient, and secondly, with the general principle of helping the patient. If these principles do not contradict each other, everything possible should be done to help the person.
References
COPD. (2017). Web.
What is CPR? (2020). Web.