Bioethics Case Study Review essays

Bioethics Case Study Review essays Family Wishes and Harm to the Patient We are aware of the following facts in Katherine's case: 1.Katherine is in a comatose state. After arresting several times, she remained comatose and presumably irreversibly unconscious. After other complications, her state progressed to slow multisystem failure. She was beyond the capability of experiencing the burden of pain by her vegetative state 2.Katherine had not made it clear by written directives nor communicated any specific instructions to her family (evident by the fact they are in disagreement) about withdrawing life-sustaining treatments if she ever became irreversibly unconscious and lost decision-making capacity. 3.The proxy, in this case the family, must rely on the reasonable treatment standard because Katherine's wishes were never clearly communicated. Following the third resuscitation and development of multisystem failure, the family disagreed on further treatment determinations. The consultation committee clarified options, but indecisiveness persisted. Agreement was eventually reached. 4.Proxy decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments were as follows: a. After second resuscitation and comatose state: ventilation, tube-feed dependency, and long-term care facility for full treatment b. Remained comatose and developed slow multisystem failure (slow dying process): cessation of invasive treatment but continued ventilation and feeding c. Development of paralysis of the gut: continue feeding 5.The provider complied with the family's determinations. 6.Katherine died from feculent emesis and massive aspiration after only ventilation was exercised and all other treatment terminated. We are also aware of the following good and bad features of the case: 1.Without the life sustaining treatment (i.e. ventilator, tube feeding) Katherine would die, and death is always bad. However, Katherine is comatose and the bad associated with death is reduced by t...