Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case

Withholding life support is among the critical ethical issues in contemporary healthcare system. Clarity of a patient’s wishes regarding treatment choices is a primary consideration for healthcare providers before removing or refusing a life-sustaining treatment. Martinez’s case highlights the need for health care providers to respect a patient’s advance directive on avoiding CPR should they require it. Ethical theories and principles guide healthcare professionals to make informed decisions that match a patient’s values and preferences.

The Relevance of Advance Directives

Patients have the freedom to make informed choices regarding end-of-life interventions. Oral and written directives are crucial in enabling patients to express their preferences in the event of a chronic condition (Penders et al., 2019). The aim is to allow individuals to clarify their preferences in case symptoms deteriorate. Thus, healthcare providers should acknowledge clients’ move to avoid interventions such as CPR based on clearly specified directives. Martinez’s old age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reinforces the need for the healthcare team to recognize DNR orders. Failure to adhere to the patient’s wishes undermines his rights and exposes him to psychological, emotional, and physical distress as witnessed in Martinez’s terrible state.

Ethical Principles When Considering Limiting Life Support

Martinez’s old age and chronic obstructive pulmonary condition requires healthcare professionals to make informed decisions on interventions necessary to improve quality of life. The patient’s decision to avoid CPR indicates awareness about pain triggered by COPD. Ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy requires professionals to deliver services according to the patient’s best interests and self-determination (Varkey, 2020). The ethical aspects remind providers about Kantian ethics and the duty of care towards patients regardless of their complications (Cunning, 2020).

One assumption is that withholding life support is an ethical decision based on the patient’s informed consent. In Martinez’s case, death is imminent hence withholding life support protects him from additional suffering. Thus, withholding life support depends on reasonability of the process in prolonging life and alleviating pain. In this case, the primary motivation is to avoid killing a patient but respond to calls for practices that minimize emotional, psychological, and physical distress.

Moral Issues Associated With Limiting Life Support

Limiting life support allows patients to refuse treatment that expose them to additional pain and suffering. Healthcare professionals consider the patient’s condition such as COPD for Martinez’s case and severity of one’s health and well-being. In the scenario, the decision to turn up oxygen triggered a terrible distress and gasps. Physical, emotional, and psychological challenges triggered by turning up of oxygen raises questions about the care team’s commitment to upholding autonomy, dignity, and non-maleficence. Considering age and the nature and severity of a disease is crucial to enable the healthcare team to understand the reasons for an advance directive seeking to avoid CPR (Porteri, 2018). In Martinez’s scenario, the old age and a chronic COPD ascertains the need to limit life support. The main concern is ensuring that an intervention such as CPR cannot improve a patient’s condition. Thus, withholding life support is a moral and ethical choice based on the need to protect the patient from adverse outcomes.

Conclusion

Martinez’s case highlights the relevance of CPR and DNR orders in end-of-life care. The decision to issue an advance directive reminds healthcare professionals to respect a patient’s autonomy when limiting life support. Thus, healthcare professionals should acknowledge oral or written preferences that help advance the principles of beneficence, autonomy, and non-maleficence.