Case Study: Alzheimer’s Disease

Diagnosis

The issue of people taking their own lives and doctors assisting sparks a vast debate on whether it is a good thing to do or not and the ethics surrounding it. In this case study, Alex Pandolfo is the patient who was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (This Morning, 2019). From this diagnosis, he decided to travel to a country where euthanasia is exercised (Switzerland) to end his life with the assistance of doctors. He had his friend Nate, a journalist, following him throughout the process, but he could not be involved directly due to various ethics and laws. In the YouTube video, the interviewers asked Mr. Alex several questions that touched on several aspects ranging from law regulations, ethics, and moral values (This Morning, 2019). Alex used his life experiences to make the decision. He mentioned that he saw his father struggle, contributing to his decision. Some people stated that a person making this decision might have issues related to their mental state. It is also important to understand that healthcare facilities have the obligation to allocate resources.

Describe

In this case study, ethical theories and principles such as consequentialism, utilitarianism, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence are heavily involved. The limits of medical assistance are tested in this case study. Many people ask about the limitations of healthcare workers’ services. At what point should doctors limit their services? Practicing euthanasia is one of the questionable exercises. Euthanasia has been exercised in many countries, and there is always a debate on its justification. Some moral values and ethics support and refute euthanasia. Questions on whether it is okay for doctors to assist a person in ending their life involve law and ethical principles when answering it. Doctors are meant to help people with their health issues, not to take their lives. However, patients have rights (This Morning, 2019). Therefore, to answer whether it is okay for Mr. Alex to travel to another country and end his life, we need to consider ethical theories, moral principles, human rights, and laws.

Considering that medical resources need to be carefully considered, the question of who gets what before who is essential. A person looking to end his life and a person looking to get better who deserves it more? This question is associated with healthcare policies, ethical principles, and human rights.

In the interview, the hosts stated that many people said that it is unfair to impose a duty on the doctors in this case. But Mr. Alex points out that it is no duty since they are aiding. If the doctors are involved directly, that can be termed as suicide, and various laws are broken. No one is forced to take this action, but they are going to aid the process; therefore, the issue raised by people is covered by the laws governing euthanasia (This Morning, 2019). At some point, the patient might not be able to withstand the pain, and keeping the patient under medication can cause more pain and, thus, the reason to end his life. It is the patient’s decision since it involves his life, and he is practicing his autonomy. Some patients might not be in the right state of mind to make such decisions, but in this case study, the patient is well-informed and can make such decisions. The video states that the patient cannot do the process in their home country due to the laws set. This shows the conflict between paternalism and autonomy. Paternalism limits people to certain powers that are made for their own good. The good of these limits is questionable, especially when it involves euthanasia.

Defend

In ethics, various ethical theories can be used to justify Mr. Alex’s decision. In health care, each patient has the right to make decisions on the treatment they receive. Therefore, if Mr. Alex decides that he wants to end his life through euthanasia, it is legally and ethically okay (This Morning, 2019). The power of autonomy supports the actions that Mr. Alex decided to take. He knows what he is going through and the risks associated with his medical condition. As his friend Nate explains, Mr. Alex is a very brilliant person, and therefore, for him to make that decision, it means he has thought it through, and that is the best decision. In this scenario, the question of beneficence comes into play, and since the doctors have exhausted all other alternatives, assisting the patient in ending his life is doing good that benefits the patient and improves his welfare (Chonko, 2012). Also, the non-maleficence ethical principle dictates that doctors have to ensure that no harm happens to patients. The conflict between autonomy and beneficence is debatable based on the patient. However, asking what is good for the patient when doctor