Phi 324 Module 8 Case Analysis Questions ✓ Solved

Phi 324 Module 8 Case Analysis Questions The following questions can

Analyze the case of Mrs. M, a 54-year-old woman with serious medical conditions including myocardial infarction, pancreatitis, and respiratory failure. Evaluate her medical status, diagnosis, prognosis, and the reliability of her medical information, including whether a second opinion has been obtained. Consider her treatment options, potential outcomes, prognosis, expected quality of life, and the likelihood of benefit from treatment. Assess her decision-making capacity, whether she is competent, informed about her condition and treatment alternatives, and whether she has expressed her wishes through advance directives or a durable power of attorney. Explore the perspectives of her family and friends, their understanding of her condition, their agreement, and their legal responsibilities. Deliberate on communication issues with her family and the possibility of involving external mediators. Evaluate the awareness and opinions of her healthcare providers, their understanding of the case, and differences in their perspectives. Review applicable legal, hospital, and societal guidelines, including potential liabilities, ethical norms, and relevant literature. Consider financial factors impacting her treatment decisions. Apply ethical principles, virtues, and Catholic teachings to analyze her case fully. Use Dr. Joseph Devettere’s model of prudential reasoning—situational analysis, perspectives of patient, proxy, and provider, court decisions, and ethical reflection—to guide your analysis and formulate a morally sound, virtuous resolution that promotes human good.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The case of Mrs. M presents a complex ethical dilemma involving medical decision-making at the end of life for a middle-aged woman with multiple critical health conditions. Her situation underscores the importance of assessing medical facts, respecting patient autonomy, understanding family dynamics, adhering to legal and institutional norms, and applying moral virtues rooted in Catholic social teaching and principles of medical ethics. This analysis utilizes Dr. Joseph Devettere’s prudential reasoning model to evaluate the case thoroughly and ethically.

Situational Analysis

Mrs. M is a 54-year-old woman admitted to a tertiary care hospital with multiple severe diagnoses: acute anterior wall myocardial infarction, acute pancreatitis, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), respiratory failure, and lactic acidosis. She was intubated and placed on a ventilator but was periodically alert and responsive during the initial days. She had no formal advance directives, but her husband and daughter (Martha) affirmed her prior statements about not wanting to live in a compromised state. Mrs. M’s medical history included anxiety, depression, and a past suicide attempt, which complicate her decision-making capacity. She refused high-risk surgery and dialysis, requesting withdrawal from life support, a decision supported initially by her family and physicians. Subsequently, her care team became hesitant due to concerns about her age, mental health, and potential for recovery, consulting an ethics committee, which led to conflicts with her family.

Patient’s Perspective, Proxy’s Perspective, and Provider’s Perspective

Mrs. M's expressed wish was to avoid prolonged life in a diminished state, and her family supported her autonomy, emphasizing her prior wishes. Her decision was based on her quality of life considerations, acknowledging her serious health limitations. The healthcare team initially supported honoring her declaration but later questioned her competence due to her history of depression and the recent decline in her mental state. This shift reflected concerns about her mental capacity, potential physician-assisted death, and the possibility of the patient being influenced by temporary emotional distress rather than truly autonomous decision-making.

Legal, Administrative, and Societal Factors

Legally, the absence of documented advance directives placed the burden on surrogate decision-makers, who in this case were her husband and daughter. Hospital guidelines, influenced by Catholic health care norms, emphasize respecting patient autonomy but also require assessments of decision-making capacity. The conflict with hospital ethics principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice highlights the complexity of end-of-life decisions. External legal and societal frameworks, including state laws on withholding or withdrawing life support, should be considered, alongside religious and cultural values that shape healthcare policies.

Application of Ethical Principles and Virtues

The principles of autonomy require that Mrs. M’s wishes be respected, provided she is competent to make such decisions. Her prior statements and current expressions indicate a strong preference to avoid life-sustaining measures when quality of life is highly compromised. The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence support honoring her autonomy to avoid futile or burdensome interventions. The virtue of prudence, as outlined by Aristotle and Aquinas, urges careful discernment of the truthful goods involved—preservation of life, relief from suffering, respect for human dignity—and the promotion of human flourishing. The virtues of faith, hope, and love further underpin compassionate care that respects the patient's dignity.

Application of Catholic Teaching and Moral Reflection

The Catholic tradition advocates respect for autonomy within the context of Virtue Ethics, emphasizing the moral importance of discernment and prudence in respecting human dignity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes the moral legitimacy of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means of life-sustaining treatment that serve only to prolong suffering or preserve life artificially (CCC 2278). The principle of double effect also applies; if the patient's withdrawal results in death but is intended to respect her wishes and alleviate suffering, it is morally permissible. In this case, honoring Mrs. M’s autonomy aligns with the virtues of hope and love, emphasizing compassionate care tailored to her values and circumstances.

Conclusion and Ethical Resolution

Using Devettere's model, the situational facts support respecting Mrs. M’s decision to withdraw ventilator support, given her informed and voluntary refusal of further treatment and her previous expressed wishes. The assessment of her capacity, considering her mental health history, indicates she is sufficiently competent, especially with corroboration from family members who understand her values. The conflicts and hesitations among healthcare providers highlight the importance of prudence—balancing hope with realism, respecting human dignity, and avoiding the potential for discriminatory treatment based on age or mental health history. The ethical course is to honor her autonomy, facilitate her withdrawal from life support, and provide compassionate care focused on her dignity. This resolution reflects the virtues of prudence, compassion, and respect for human life that are central to Catholic moral teaching and medical ethics.

References

• Catholic Church. (1994). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Devettere, J. (2004). Living the Virtues: A Course in Moral Formation. St. Pauls.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, J. (2008). End of Life Decision-Making in Catholic Healthcare: A Guide for Practitioners. Catholic Medical Mission Board.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2010). Ethics and Virtue. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
• Shanks, T. (2012). Everyday Ethics. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
• National Catholic Bioethics Center. (2010). Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (5th ed.).
• Sulmasy, D. P., & Pellegrino, E. D. (2002). A Tradition of Whole-Person Care in Medical Ethics. AMA Journal of Ethics, 4(2), 136–142.
• McCormick, K. (2010). Respect for Life and Dignity in Catholic Theological Ethics. Theological Studies, 71(4), 659–674.