Question

Evaluate the following case a) using the moral principle of autonomy and b) critique the principle of autonomy (you can use an ethics of care perspective; or shared decision making perspectives; or informed consent; or the principle of beneficence; or paternalism). Then, c) provide an overall recommendation.

“Harold Smith is a 27-year-old man who used to live a dangerous lifestyle. He liked nothing more than an extreme thrill, such as diving off a cliff into swirling water. He lived alone and had few friends. He worked as a guard for an armored vehicle company, a job he tolerated. He is close to his parents and would visit them frequently. They continually tried to get him to live a more standard, less dangerous lifestyle. He seemed to enjoy their prodding but simply smiled in response. He recently broke his neck in a diving accident. He was quickly brought to an emergency room and intubated because he could not breathe on his own. Within a few days, it became clear that he was permanently paralyzed from the neck down. Without a ventilator he would quickly die.

Harold began to insist that his ventilator be removed, saying that he would rather be dead than live in a paralyzed state. His parents, however, instructed the health care team to not remove the ventilator. The attending physician understands Harold’s objections but believes there is a small but significant chance that Harold will soon become independent of the ventilator and that he will adjust to his situation and find a way to make a meaningful life for himself, as so many others have done before him. In short, his physicians think it best not to remove the ventilator until Harold has psychologically adjusted to his new condition. After three weeks, Harold continues to demand that his ventilator be removed” (Jones & Demarco, 2016).

Answer 1

a)Moral principle of Autonomy

According to the moral principle of autonomy "not to cause any harm to others". It provides a moral right for a patient to refuse treatment. A doctor to refrain from patient wishes for his treatment. Self rule or self determination is now a days carried by everyone. If the patient is knowledgeble, understandable, on his own will ,after 18 years to make decision then no body can stop or oppose his decision.Here the physician is trying to bring a quality life on a probability basis which is difficult for a individual to survive without artificial ventilator.The doctor should be sympathetic as well as empathetic to take decision favouring patient

b)critique the principle of autonomy

This means limiting a person from his liberty or autonomy of making decision in view of safe guarding , protecting and preventing from any harm.This is the decision made by the physician , because it is his responsibility to not harm any living being.

Also it is the affection of parents upon their son to take care of him well during his suffering and cannot accept the wish of their son

c)Overall recommendation

If the treating physician comes to know that recovery is not at all possible, it is his responsibilty to explain the status to the patient and his close family members regarding the type of care. If the physician decided to do what the patient wishes ,legal authorization from the concerned department has to be taken.Such as for Mercy Killing. But after steady discussion with the parents of the patient as well who needs the most intensive psychological support to lead their rest of life.