The Ethical and Legal Issues of Mrs. McGoldrick’s Case:
An Analysis Using the Four-Box Method
The case of Mrs. McGoldrick is one related to key ethical issues of dignity in dying, patient refusal of potentially life-sustaining care, and navigating conflicting interests among family members, clinicians, and patients. An analysis of Mrs. McGoldrick’s case, using the four-box method (Medical Indications, Patient Preferences, Quality of Life, and Contextual Features) adapted from Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade’s guidebook on clinical ethics, is below (1).
Medical Indications Mrs. McGoldrick is an 81-year-old patient with chronic diseases - like diabetes and repeated heart attacks - and was admitted to the hospital for a urinary tract infection. She was also cited to have indications of
…show more content…
McGoldrick’s case. Her case focuses on two sides of one coin: living with dignity and dying with dignity. From a principlism perspective, there is tension between respecting patient autonomy – assuming decision-making capacity – and beneficence, from a clinical standpoint (9). Treatment from a ‘best-interest’ and dignity perspective differs among the various stakeholders in the case, where the family and physician believe potentially life-sustaining options must be pursued, though the patient outwardly refuses those treatments. The ethics of Mrs. McGoldrick’s wish to die and refuse treatment hinges largely upon whether she has decision-making capacity. Recommendations for Mrs. McGoldrick may be to document her ‘wish to die’ and refusal of PEG tube insertion in writing, as well as to speak with Dr. Misenti about alternative treatment options, such as palliative care or hospice care, to prioritize her comfort and relief of suffering (10,11). Bolstering social support and speaking with Regan and Emily to engage them in her care may also be an option that may ultimately sway Mrs. McGoldrick’s decision to
Introduction People have moral and ethical values that assist them in making decisions about their healthcare on a daily basis. What if a person found out that they had a terminal illness and only had months to live? What if those few months would be filled with treatments, pain and suffering, tear filled family members, and high cost medical bills? Physician- assisted suicide remains a debated topic which causes physicians, nurses and those involved to take a look at what they value and what they are willing to do in order to carry out a patient’s wishes.
For the terminally ill the decision of ending their lives with compassion should be a fundamental right, a personal
Ever wonder what nurses have to go through with slowly dying patients? In Barbara Huttmann’s essay, ‘’A Crime of Compassion’’ she justifies her actions on both a social and personal approach. She tries to establish her thoughts on why someone has the right to die. She starts off the essay serious. From the beginning, she made the reader understand what she had to go through.
Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.
The debate on whether or not to legalize assisted suicide in every state has caused many uproars in the field of health care. Elements that factor into the controversy of this practice include ethicality, legality, and autonomy. Questions about the issue include: should the patient have the autonomy to select the system of assisted suicide, is it morally
Why has dignity become the defining and unifying aspect of the right to die debates? Whether “Dying with dignity” is defined as having a meaningful death or as a death without undue suffering or loss of autonomy (as proposed by the right to die movement), “dying with dignity” is now synonymous with having “a good death.” Dignity represents a taken for granted ideal of both sides of the debate, with an assumption that all human beings desire to die with dignity. Many right to die advocates argue for more relative and contingent definitions and understandings of dignity. In current terms, dignity is subjective and may depend on how the person views their mental and physical being.
There are many ethical and practical concerns that must be taken into account when considering whether to end a person's life, including questions of autonomy, dignity, and pain management. Simply asserting that some individuals have a duty to die is not enough to address these complex issues, and it fails to take into account the potential for unintended
For this reason, they contend, dying people should have the right to control the timing of their death and should be permitted to obtain a doctor's help in doing so.” Terminally ill people who do not have the option of physician assisted suicide have to go through an extremely painful and slow death. They should have the right to control when they can be put out of their misery. Nobody should be forced to suffer, and PAS is a relief from suffering. Accoding to “Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized”, “The physician's obligations are many but, when cure is impossible and palliation has failed to achieve its objectives, there is always a residual obligation to relieve suffering.
In Not Just a Death, a System Failure, author Barbara Morgan criticized the US health care system’s lack of palliative care, painful treatments, and unwillingness to face the end-of-life decision, which leads to many patients suffering the last part of their lives in discomfort. The author centers her argument on the anecdote about the dying of her late mother, who spent several months in the discomfort of intensive care until the time of her death. Moran’s point is one part valid since the treatments for serious diseases are dangerous, painful, and many times only focus on prolonging life rather than improving life. However, she neglected the fact that these treatments are optional, and patients are always open to spending the last part of their life away from the hospital. Treatments for serious diseases are known to have many side effects that deteriorate patents’ health.
The argument of autonomy and dying in dignity is given prominence by cases such as Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, who both argued that “Suffering, indignity, and the loss of independence are undesirable” (Benatar, 2010, p2) and as a result a mentally cognitive individual suffering from chronic illness or terminal illness should be legally allowed to request assisted dying. This ensures that individuals are able to “arrange to die at a chosen time, in privacy and with dignity” (Benatar, 2010, p3). Diane Pretty suffered from Motor Neuron Disease and was experiencing the disintegration of her body, as a result she appealed to the court to allow her husband to help her end her life, but the request was denied (Doyal, 2001, p1079). Diane’s argument was essentially grounded on the value of autonomy and dignity, the reality of her disease meant she would likely suffer from extreme pain and die an undignified death. The rapid degeneration of her body meant that she would become dependent on those around her for the simplest of tasks.
That is to say, why keep a person whose life is now full of suffering, with death right around the corner from being able to decide on a time of death if they choose to do so. The numbers from Oregon, since the implementation of “Death with Dignity,” reveals “752 patients have participated in physician-assisted death; 400 more people received prescriptions to end their lives but never took the medication.” Undoubtedly, the indication of these numbers is that patients are still in full control of their lives until the end, the sole authority in the most dire of circumstances. A reality advocates of PAS thinks critics are attempting to abolish. The aforementioned, Jack Kevorkian believed, “If you don 't have liberty and self-determination, you 've got nothing, . . . .
In the documentary, Bill Moyers talks to three terminally ill patients, their families, and their doctors about the concerns with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS allows a terminally ill patient to hasten an inevitable and unavoidable death through a lethal dose. The patients considered PAS in order to end their prolonged suffering. The legal role of advance directives in end of life issues allows a patient to specify how he wishes to be treated by a healthcare provider during a progressively weakened state. Advance directives may provide patients with freedom to choose end of life treatment, but moral and religious implications, the ethical battle between a physician’s duty to care and inner-conscious, and state laws pose threats to PAS.
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.