IDNStudy.com, ang komunidad ng pagbabahagi ng kaalaman at mga sagot. Magtanong at makatanggap ng eksaktong sagot mula sa aming mga bihasang miyembro ng komunidad.

elderly male needed a blood transfusion to survive but he is Jehovah’s Witness and they do not think it is religiously permissible to have a blood transfusion. So he refuses the transfusion but wants to be constantly resuscitated when he goes into cardiac arrest. He still wants to live as long as possible. The doctor believes it is medically futile to keep resuscitating the man since he doesn’t really have that much longer to live when he refuses the blood transfusion. He believes it is a waste of medical resources. What should the ethics committee say to him? Is medical futility good enough ethical grounds for a doctor to refuse to treat a patient or does a patient have an unlimited right to resuscitation even though he is making a very bad medical decision regarding his own longevity? What moral principles or theories would you appeal to if you were on the ethics committee? What would you decide?

Sagot :

Answer:

The ethics committee should affirm the patient’s autonomy and right to refuse or accept treatment based on his religious beliefs, including the refusal of blood transfusions and desire for resuscitation.

Medical futility alone is not sufficient ethical grounds to refuse treatment. The patient’s right to make his own healthcare decisions, even if they seem unwise, should be respected.

Moral Principles/Theories:

1. Autonomy: Respect for the patient’s personal values and decision-making capacity.

2. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: While respecting autonomy, the goal is to balance benefiting the patient while not causing unnecessary harm or suffering.

Decision:

The committee should respect the patient's wishes for resuscitation despite the medical futility, ensuring that his choices are honored within ethical and legal boundaries.