PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 3 Should We Without Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case

Patient’s Directives

Mr. Martinez needs an ICU transfer yet his family cannot be reached and neither can he make the decision on whether or not to accept the treatment intervention. However, in his earlier decision, the patient and his family were categorical that no resuscitation including CPR should be conducted on him. Mr. Martinez was competent at this time while making the decision. As such, while the provider may feel the need to withhold life, they should uphold patient autonomy and the decisions he made with his family about any interventions, including being transferred to the ICU and conducting a CPR.

Ethical values and even the law are categorical that life is precious and should be preserved. Health care providers like physicians have the duty to preserve and protect life (Di Paolo et al., 2019). The decision to take Mr. Martinez to the ICU is a complex one as it entails considering the moral position of the physician and against the family’s and patient’s autonomy to have advanced directives, DNR. In this case, transferring the patient to the ICU and ensuring his stability is not a priority since they made it clear that such interventions should not be implemented. Withholding life support in this case is the most effective decision based on the directives from the patients and principle of autonomy since Mr. Martinez was competent when making the choice.

ALSO READ:

PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 1 Matrix of Ethical Theories

Family’s stated Preferences

In this case, the physician requires support from the family, especially Mrs. Martinez and explain the intervention as well as the chances of attaining a positive outcome. While the physician can advise the family about the benefits of CPR and transfer to ICU, it is the family has the final determination. In most cases, CPR patients rarely survive and this is what informed the family’s decision, DNR. Withholding or withdrawing life support is legally justified based on the provisions of assisted suicide and euthanasia. The principles of informed consent and autonomy are fundamental ethical and even legal considerations in this case (Vergallo, 2020). Imperatively, the ethical, moral, and legal components of the decision by the family and physician’s professional conduct are critical in this instance. The physician has no legal implications by withholding treatment for the patient based on the advance directives offered, DNR. Again, no conflict of interest arises in the case since the physician and the medical team will be adhering to ethical and legal requirements concerning the issue at hand.

Conclusion

Ethical dilemmas in healthcare implore providers to consider patient values and principles as well as legal provisions that guide such processes. In this case, the physician must adhere to the principle of autonomy and informed consent to make any decisions on giving the patient life support or not. The case demonstrates the legal and ethical as well as moral dilemmas that healthcare providers encounter in their practice environment.

References

Dar, M., Swamy, L., Gavin, D., & Theodore, A. (2021). Mechanical-ventilation supply and

options for the COVID-19 pandemic. Leveraging all available resources for a limited resource in a crisis. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 18(3), 408-416. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202004-317CME

Di Paolo, M., Gori, F., Papi, L., & Turillazzi, E. (2019). A review and analysis of new Italian law

219/2017: ‘provisions for informed consent and advance directives treatment’. BMC medical ethics, 20, 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0353-2

Vergallo, G. M. (2020). Advance healthcare directives: binding or informational value?

            Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(1), 98-109.

DOI: 10.1017/S0963180119000823.