Case Analysis On Ethical Theory Resources

Case Analysis On Ethical Theoryresourcescase Analysis On Ethical Theor

Review the case and identify which ethical theory is in place. Provide your impression by responding to the questions below. This commentary should be at least 3 to 5 pages, with supporting references in APA format.

"Oscar Ramirez, a 55-year-old patient of Mexican descent, presented with a large growth in his throat. He was told that the growth was cancerous. Mr. Ramirez was also told that he would need to have the tumor removed and start an aggressive round of chemotherapy. Mr. Ramirez agreed to the proposed treatment. However, Ramirez's wife and children told the oncologist that complete truthfulness would devastate him and that it was their duty to protect him. They supported this claim by saying that their background required that "la familia" take this protective role. They added that their culture does not place the same value on the individual's control of his own life that most Americans do. Thus, when the tumor could not be completely removed, Mr. Ramirez was merely told that his recovery would be lengthy and that much treatment would be needed to keep the cancer from recurring. Because of great skill in deception and a tightly orchestrated effort to conceal the truth, Oscar Ramirez died without ever being told of his terminal illness" (Levine, 2007, p. 35). Which ethical theory or theories are demonstrated in this case? Were the patient's best interests met? Why or why not? What theories were violated and why? Was this situation handled correctly by health professionals? What should have been done differently and why?

References: Levine, C. (2007). Taking sides: Clashing views on bioethical issues (12th ed.). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin Publication Group.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Oscar Ramirez presents a complex ethical dilemma rooted in cultural values, communication, and principles of medical ethics. At its core, the case involves the tension between respecting patient autonomy, the cultural context of the family, and the healthcare professional's duty to provide truthful information. Analyzing this scenario through various ethical theories reveals the underlying principles that inform the decision-making process and highlights areas where ethical violations occurred or were justified based on cultural considerations.

The primary ethical theory demonstrated in this case is utilitarianism, exemplified by the family’s decision to withhold the full truth from Mr. Ramirez to protect him from emotional distress. Utilitarian ethics prioritize actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. The family believed that full disclosure would lead to psychological devastation, thereby decreasing Mr. Ramirez’s overall well-being. From their perspective, protecting him served the greatest good, aligned with a cultural value of familism, where family members take on a protective role. This approach prioritizes collective well-being over individual autonomy, reflecting a form of cultural relativism.

Contrastingly, the healthcare professionals involved appeared to lean towards a deontological ethic, emphasizing the duty to respect patient autonomy by fully informing Mr. Ramirez of his health status. Deontological ethics argue that individuals have a moral right to make informed decisions regarding their own lives, regardless of the consequences. In this case, the medical team’s conscience may have conflicted with the family’s wishes, leading them to withhold truthful information to protect the patient from despair. Their actions, therefore, reflect a tension between respecting autonomy and practicing beneficence—acting in the patient's best interest.

This case illustrates a violation of the core principle of respect for autonomy, which is central to modern medical ethics. By concealing the truth about his prognosis, Mr. Ramirez’s capacity to make informed choices about his treatment and life was compromised. His right to autonomy was overridden by cultural considerations represented by his family’s wishes, which raises concerns about paternalism—where healthcare providers and family members make decisions on behalf of the patient purportedly for his benefit.

Regarding whether Mr. Ramirez’s best interests were met, the answer is nuanced. While the family’s intent was to protect him from emotional pain, the long-term consequence was his death without full awareness or preparation, potentially causing suffering that could have been mitigated through truthful communication. Denying him knowledge of his terminal status deprived him of the opportunity to participate in important personal decisions, such as expressing his end-of-life wishes, making arrangements, or attaining peace with his mortality. Therefore, his best interests were arguably not fully served by the deception.

From an ethical standpoint, the actions of the healthcare professionals could be deemed problematic. While respecting cultural values is essential, professionals have an obligation to uphold the principles of honesty and autonomy. Their complicity in the deception and failure to advocate for truthful communication violates the foundational tenet of informed consent. Instead, they should have engaged in culturally sensitive communication strategies, such as involving cultural mediators or family meetings, to balance respect for culture with ethical standards.

A more appropriate approach would have been to seek a compromise that respects the patient’s cultural background while still honoring his right to know. Educating the family about the importance of truthfulness and finding ways to deliver difficult information with compassion might have preserved Mr. Ramirez’s dignity and autonomy. Such communication would have empowered him to make informed choices about his care and end-of-life planning, consistent with ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and non-maleficence.

In conclusion, the case exemplifies the complex interplay between cultural values and ethical principles in healthcare. While the family’s intentions were protective, their actions resulted in a violation of Mr. Ramirez’s autonomy and possibly increased his suffering. Healthcare providers should have recognized the importance of cultural sensitivity but also prioritized transparency and respect for patient autonomy. Ethically, a balanced approach that respects cultural contexts without compromising fundamental rights is essential for morally responsible healthcare.

References

• Levine, C. (2007). Taking sides: Clashing views on bioethical issues (12th ed.). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Gillon, R. (2015). Medical ethics: Four principles plus others. BMJ, 309(6948), 184-188.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
• Macklin, R. (2003). Disclosing truth and caring: Perspective of culturally competent care. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 14(3), 215-231.
• Childress, J. F., & Siegler, M. (2018). Moral principles and medical practice. The Hastings Center Report, 48(3), 13-16.
• Northrup, D. (2019). Cultural competence and health disparities: Ethical considerations. Journal of Healthcare Ethics, 5(4), 75-89.
• Wainwright, P., & McDonald, S. (2020). Ethical considerations in cross-cultural healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 124-128.