Provide a 500 word minimum post that reflects upon what bills you would propose? If you had to pick one policy topic and draft a bill on it what would….
For this Discussion I would like you to consider a real-life case in which a decision needs to be made about the appropriate course of action
For this Discussion I would like you to consider a real-life case in which a decision needs to be made about the appropriate course of action. In discerning what act would be best, or moral, you may justify your decision using the Principles of Bio-Ethics, Ethical Theory, Religion, and Natural Law.
Please respond to the questions below in regards to the Case Study presented.
KQ is a 21-year-old woman who was brought to the local emergency department after her roommates found her unconscious and not breathing. Earlier that evening, they had been out together at a local club, where she’d had several drinks and an unknown quantity of Valium. When she felt faint at the club they took her home and she went to bed. Some 15 minutes later, her roommates realized she had stopped breathing, and they called 911. With mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, EMS personnel were unable to restore spontaneous breaths, but she remained unconscious. She was rapidly assessed in the ED and then transferred to the ICU. For several days, KQ remained in a state of unconsciousness, although she evidenced sleep/wake cycles and reflexive responses to painful stimuli. KQ’s parents, who lived nearby and were acting as her representatives, remained hopeful that she would recover, despite the physician’s fears that she had experienced a significant anoxic brain injury. At the recommendation of the pulmonary service, KQ’s parents agreed to intubation and mechanical ventilation to better control her breathing. In addition, a feeding tube was placed to ensure adequate nutrition. When, after more than a week, there were still no signs of improvement, the ICU team recommended that she be transferred to St. Clare’s, a large regional medical center with a highly regarded neurology service. KQ’s parents agreed to this move and signed admittance paperwork upon arrival at the hospital.
At St. Clare’s, the neurologic work-up indicated that KQ was in a vegetative state. Over the next three months, her clinical status remained basically unchanged. Ultimately, after repeated inquiries by her parents, the neurology team conceded that she was unlikely to ever emerge from the vegetative state, and that even if she did she would likely have life-long, profound cognitive and motor deficits. At this point, her parents insisted that their daughter would not wish to have her life sustained under those conditions. They asked the doctors to discontinue mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition, and to allow her to die. The attending physician informed them that their request would have to be reviewed by the hospital’s Bioethics Committee.
The committee reviewed KQs medical record, interviewed the physicians and nurses involved in her care, met with her parents, and consulted with the Bishop of the local Catholic diocese. After completing its review, the committee concluded that attempts to wean the patient from the ventilator could go forward. If these attempts were unsuccessful, the committee would need to reconsider the case at that point. With regard to artificial nutrition and hydration, the committee was more definitive: under the guidelines of the ERD (Ethical Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services), artificial nutrition and hydration could not be discontinued because KQ was not actively dying or even terminally ill, and there was nothing about her condition that would render nutrition and hydration excessively burdensome either to her or to her family.
<link is hidden> the ventilator be removed? Should the patient be weaned from it? Other option?
<link is hidden> principle would you favor in this case: Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, or Justice? Why?
<link is hidden> all the participants in this case: patient, family, hospital, medical staff, the Bishop, the State/Law, whose rights should be favored most heavily? Least heavily? How would you rank them all from most to least important?
<link is hidden> should we do in a situation where institutional policies (the hospital’s) fail to align with ethical responsibilities (<link is hidden> what you think the right action would be in this case)?
<link is hidden> a court have the right to impose an order to St. Clare’s that would require the physicians to discontinue life-sustaining interventions? What implications (good or bad) might this order have on future patients, on hospitals and care-givers, and society at large?
<link is hidden> there a particular Ethical Theory that you think best applies in this case? Why?