with Limiting Life SupportStudent’s NameInstitutional AffiliationDate
Moral Issues Associated with Limiting Life SupportMr. Martinez suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and his condition has worsened such that he is in need of intensive care to save his life. However, Mr. Martinez directed that the doctors should not perform CPR on him no matter how much he needed it. Moreover, there is a DNR order on his chart. Since the doctors cannot contact his wife, they must decide independently. The doctors have to consider the patient’s directives, their moral obligation, and the ethical principles that guide their practice.The patient can be said to have been experiencing low quality of life because he suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An individual is said to be experiencing low quality of life when their health prevents them from leading a fulfilling life (Sosnowski et al., 2017). Mr. Martinez was admitted to the hospital due to a respiratory tract infection. He chose not to allow doctors to perform CPR on him even if it could save his life. This shows that Mr. Martinez’s Quality of life was low such that he did not see the point of allowing CPR or resuscitation to save his life.The only known family to Mr. Martinez is his wife. Mr. Martinez’s wife agreed that CPR should not be performed on her husband even if he is in dire need of it. Thus, the family prefers that Mr. Martinez a life-saving procedure that involves CPR should not be performed on Mr. Martinez.One moral issue surrounding limiting life support is that it is morally wrong to let a patient die when something can be done to prolong their life. Life support sustains life for a more extended period, giving hope for recovery. Some patients who are put on life support make a full recovery and are able to live healthy lives once again. Thus, limiting life support denies a patient a chance at prolonged life and the possibility of recovery. On the other hand, people against life support argue that it is morally wrong to keep an individual alive without their consent (Akdeniz et al., 2021). These people point out situations where it is clear that there is no chance that the patient will recover, and yet they are put on life support. Hence, life support only prolongs the dying process in such a situation.The ethical principles most relevant to to reach an ethically sound decision include autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. The principle of autonomy states that patients have the right to make decisions about their lives, including the treatment options they want. The principle of beneficence requires healthcare providers to act for the benefit of their patients. Lastly, the principle of non-maleficence obligates medical professionals not to harm the patient (The University of Washington, n.d.). Therefore, the doctors must ensure that their decision does not infringe on Mr. Martinez’s right to make decisions about his choice of care, benefits Mr. Martinez, and causes Mr. Martinez no harm.One consideration the hospital must make is the cause of Mr. Martinez’s respiratory failure. The patient suffered respiratory failure because his oxygen was accidentally turned up. This is negligence on the hospital’s part, and it could lead to a legal battle with the patient’s family. The conflict of interest that could arise from the situation is that doctors might feel obligated to save Mr. Martinez’s life, even administering CPR, because their negligence worsened his condition. In this case, the doctors’ interests are to protect themselves from legal ramifications. This conflicts with the patient’s directives which state that he does not want CPR. Thus, there is a conflict of interest on whether the doctors will protect themselves and go against the patient’s wishes or respect the patient’s wishes and leave themselves open for a legal consequences.
ReferencesAkdeniz, M., Yardmc, B.,