The Four Principles Of Morality

One can say that a person’s autonomy is proof enough to decide if they choose to discontinue life saving treatment. Be that as it may, when can a medical professional decide to ignore the patient’s request? To answer this question I will be using the principlist method argue when it is necessary for a medical professional to do what is in the best interest of the patient, even if it means violating their autonomy. Autonomy, or respecting one’s actions or choices, is one of the four main principles of morality. Autonomy is a major component of informed consent and to give consent is to be competent. Thus, I will be providing information of what it means to be competent. The second principle of morality is beneficence or the obligation to help

He has just been diagnosed with depression and given antidepressants. Before his medications could take effect George has a heart attack. His heart and kidney are affected so that blood cannot be pumped to his kidneys. He is put on renal dialysis until he could recover. But it is not clear if the treatment will prove effective. George, unable to endure the reality of his illness and other detrimental issues, requests to discontinue treatment and be allowed to die. Respecting a person’s sovereignty is essential when working in the medical field. The “rules” of upholding one’s autonomy is to respect the privacy of others, to not lie, to maintain confidentiality, to obtain consent, and to advise one when needed. Physicians should dismiss a person lacking the capacity to make decisions for themselves however it will defy the “ to obtain consent” and “to respect the privacy of others”

The patient is lethargic, but has trouble sleeping which can impose serious psychological issues. Before having a heart attack and being put on dialysis, he spoke of “ending it all”. All of these factors prove that George’s competency should be questioned. In order to give informed consent the patient must be competent, a standard for concurrence. Therefore, he cannot approve of treatment if he is lacking decision-making capacity.

Since the patient is not able to give informed consent it should be noted that George’s spouse should be the one to determine the best course of action. It would be up to his wife, Helen, to decide what should be done about continuing or discontinuing treatment. If she decides to respect George’s wishes, then treatment will cease. But the renal dialysis will resume if she chooses to ignore George’s request. This is only true if George is unable to achieve competency, such as treating his depression and then reevaluating if he still believes he should no longer be treated with renal dialysis to end his