Ms. B Was Told She Had A Brain Aneurysm

Ms. B Was Told That She Had A Brain Aneurysm She Made An Advance Sta

Ms. B was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm and subsequently made an advance statement of her wishes, explicitly stating that she did not want surgical intervention should her aneurysm rupture. Despite her clear prior directive, her aneurysm burst, leading to emergency surgery conducted by a team of surgeons who believed that without immediate intervention, she would die. The hospital (Hospital #1) supported this decision, prioritizing the perceived obligation to preserve her life, even against her expressed wishes. Post-operation, Ms. B suffered severe neurological impairment, becoming ventilator-dependent, paralyzed from the neck down, and requiring 24-hour care. Her family, upon arriving at the hospital, reached a consensus that Ms. B would not want to continue living in such a state and petitioned for her ventilator's removal. The hospital refused to honor their request, citing concerns over legal liability. Subsequently, the family transferred Ms. B to another facility (Hospital #2), willing to respect her wishes, and she was taken off life support, passing away shortly after. The family then sued Hospital #1, claiming the hospital failed to honor Ms. B’s advance directives. The hospital argued there was insufficient evidence that Ms. B wished to refuse life-sustaining treatment, noting the lack of documentation and stating that a conversation with her nurse was not legally enough. The appellate court sided with the family, emphasizing that any form of communication—personal or professional—could evidence a person’s wishes regarding their end-of-life care.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Ms. B raises significant questions about end-of-life decision-making, the legal and ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers, and the importance of clearly articulated advance directives. In analyzing whether I agree with the initial court decision or the appellate court, I align with the appellate court’s ruling that any form of communication—including conversations—can be valid evidence of a patient’s wishes, especially when documented or witnessed. The initial hospital’s refusal to honor her previous statement highlights a failure in respecting patient autonomy, as well as an overreliance on formal documentation over contextual evidence. This case underscores how crucial it is for individuals to explicitly express their wishes in writing, ensuring that their healthcare preferences are honored, especially in critical moments.

From an ethical perspective, the actions of Hospital #1 primarily align with the principle of beneficence—acting to preserve life—without adequately respecting the principle of autonomy. Beneficence refers to acting in the best interest of the patient, but in this case, it seems they prioritized life preservation over Ms. B’s previously expressed wishes, undermining her autonomy. Conversely, Hospital #2 acted in accordance with beneficence but also demonstrated respect for patient autonomy, accepting the family’s assessment of Ms. B’s wishes and her quality of life considerations. The family, making a deeply personal and ethical decision, prioritized respect for Ms. B’s autonomy and her expressed desires, aligning their actions with the principles of respect and compassion. Their decision to honor her prior wishes and to advocate for her right to dignity in death reflects an ethical commitment to respecting individual autonomy, even in complex cases.

The fairness of this case hinges on the balance between respecting a patient’s autonomous choices and the medical imperative to preserve life. Given the evidence of their conversation, which was witnessed and supported by a nurse, the appellate court's decision appears just, emphasizing that evidence of a patient's wishes should be both respected and considered, regardless of form. This emphasizes the necessity of advance directives being precise, in writing, and accessible, to prevent ambiguities during critical moments. Notably, having clear, signed documents ensures that healthcare providers can act confidently in accordance with the patient's desires, avoiding costly and emotionally taxing legal disputes. It also underscores the importance for individuals to communicate their wishes explicitly, as assumptions or vague statements may not hold weight during emergencies, potentially leading to outcomes contrary to personal preferences.

The ethical implications of this case reveal the tensions between beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and the role of legal documentation in medical decision-making. Respecting a patient’s autonomy is foundational in medical ethics; failure to do so can result in suffering inconsistent with a patient’s values and preferences. Proper end-of-life planning, including advance directives, serves to uphold this principle. The legal recognition of conversations and informal communications as valid evidence expands the scope of protecting patient autonomy but also poses challenges for healthcare systems to implement standardized procedures for clear documentation. Ultimately, the case underscores the importance of clear communication and legal documentation of one’s healthcare wishes to ensure they are honored, respecting personal dignity and ethical standards in medicine.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Dudzinski, D. M. (2010). Respecting Autonomy and Beneficence: The Ethical Foundations of End-of-Life Care. Ethical Perspectives, 17(2), 129-151.
• GMC. (2010). Treatment and care towards the end of life: Good practice in decision making. General Medical Council.
• Jennings, B. (2001). Autonomy and the ethics of healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(4), 206-213.
• Kleinpell, R., & McLaughlin, K. (2017). End-of-life decision making: Ethical and legal considerations. Critical Care Nurse, 37(1), 44–52.
• Levenbech, J. (2016). Advance directives and patient autonomy in the hospital setting. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 19(9), 1009-1012.
• McDougall, J., & McDougall, B. (2017). Ethical decision-making in critical care: Respecting autonomy. Nursing Ethics, 24(2), 149-157.
• President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine & Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1983). Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Sharrock, S., & McMillan, D. (2018). Communicating about end-of-life decisions: Ethical issues and practical approaches. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 15, 157–166.
• Snell, R. (2014). Ethical issues in life and death decisions. British Medical Journal, 349, g6960.