Phi2000 U2d1 Discussion: Imagine The Following Scenario

Phi2000 U2d1 Discussionimagine The Following Scenario For This Week

Imagine the following scenario for this week's discussion: The critical care unit of your local hospital calls you for ethical consultation. They have admitted 53-year-old JoEllen after she overdosed on prescription medications taken with alcohol. On admission, she tries to speak but soon becomes uncommunicative. As her condition deteriorates rapidly, her son arrives with a notarized advance directive in which JoEllen has specifically asked not to be placed on life support. People are looking to you for guidance.

What ethical recommendation will you make to the attending health professionals? Apply what you have learned about utilitarianism to the scenario above:

· Using utilitarianism, what ethical recommendation would you give to the health care team?

· Explain your recommendation.

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex and emotionally charged scenario involving JoEllen’s medical condition and her expressed wishes not to be placed on life support, applying a utilitarian ethical framework provides a clear lens through which to examine the best course of action. Utilitarianism, fundamentally, emphasizes the maximization of overall happiness or well-being and the minimization of suffering (Mill, 1863). In this context, the healthcare team must evaluate the potential outcomes of honoring JoEllen’s advance directive versus the possibility of her recovery or stabilization, considering the broader implications on her well-being, her family, and the healthcare system.

From a utilitarian perspective, the primary goal is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. JoEllen’s advance directive indicates her autonomous choice to decline life support, which must be respected unless overriding circumstances exist that significantly outweigh her preferences. Respecting her autonomy generally leads to greater overall happiness and reduces harm, especially in cases where prolonging life may entail significant suffering or diminished quality of life (Childress & Beauchamp, 2013). Her attempt to communicate and her rapidly deteriorating condition highlight her desire to avoid aggressive interventions, aligning with her prior wishes.

Moreover, honoring her advance directive can reinforce respect for patient autonomy, a fundamental principle in medical ethics, leading to increased trust in healthcare providers (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Failing to honor her wishes could cause emotional distress for her family and violate ethical standards, potentially undermining the integrity of the healthcare system. Conversely, if the healthcare team disregards her expressed desires, it may result in increased suffering, both psychologically and physically, and lead to diminished overall well-being for all involved.

However, utilitarianism also considers the potential outcomes for her health, including the possibility that interventions might prolong her life but at the expense of her quality of life or cause additional suffering. If medical intervention is unlikely to improve her condition meaningfully, foregoing life support aligns with utilitarian principles by preventing unnecessary suffering and conserving medical resources for cases with better prognoses (Singer, 2011). On the other hand, if there is a reasonable chance of stabilization or recovery, one must weigh these potential benefits against her expressed desires, considering the happiness and suffering associated with each option.

In conclusion, my ethical recommendation, grounded in utilitarianism, would be to honor JoEllen’s advance directive and for the healthcare team to refrain from initiating life support measures. This approach prioritizes her autonomy, reduces unnecessary suffering, and aligns with the goal of maximizing overall well-being. It is essential, however, that this decision be communicated compassionately to her family and team members, emphasizing respect for her wishes and the likely outcomes, thus fostering trust and moral integrity in the care process.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Childress, J. F., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.