Case Study : Terminally Ill And A Doctor

In a way yes, clinical trials could help the medical world and patients, but are the consequences and side effects of these trials worth the risk? In the article stated above, Netto states although clinical trials are supposed to follow specific guidelines, but “these official guidelines are not binding and enforcement is lax.” This shows that some consequences are not being considered when being acted on. I think the utilitarian would question the idea of are these clinical trials worth potential harm to the people of the society.

Kant believed duties were absolute and unconditional and called them categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative is all people have a “perfect” duty in that if their actions were universalized, there would be no contraindications. An example is you came to a fork in the road and you had to make a decision to either go left or right. Whatever decision you made at that moment in time, you would have to make it a law by universalizing it. A nursing example would be a 19 year old girl was in the critical care unit in the hospital and is terrified. Hospital policy states they only allow visit every three hours for five minutes in the critical care unit. The girl is begging the nurse to allow her parents to stay with her. The nurse follows deontology, and will not allow the parents to stay because it is against the rules.

The definition of exploitation is the use of utilization, mostly in regards of profit. Nowadays, there are many pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in profit rather than caring for patients. This false façade will be promoted through randomized clinical trials where data can be easily fabricated. This brings into question whether this is ethical or not – so epistemic information must be examined. However, conducting these randomized clinical trials will bring into detail the method of informed consent and its purpose within equipoise. Miller argues that equipoise is incoherent in terms of its methods as well as the appearance of the step process appearing very deceptive. As for informed consent, there are times where patients

This temptation happens when the research question, such as a cure for cancer, is extremely important and the answer could save lives. If the investigators cared more about the scientific or medical advancement than the well-being of their participants, they would cross a line that prohibits treating human subjects as a means to an end. When this line is crossed, there is little left to protect patients from a callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Informed consent would not matter because of the unbalanced relationship between the knowledge and authority among the researcher and the subject. Approval by an institutional board, although it is important, can be subject to change in its responsiveness to patients’ interests when they conflict with the welfares of the researchers. Going back to Paul’s case, he agrees to enter a clinical trial which was suggested by his oncologist. The study, that Paul has agreed to enter, has claimed that this research team has created a new drug that may be on its way to cure cancer. Obviously to a father and husband, this trial looks very appealing. However, the researchers knowingly form two groups that will compare two treatments. What Paul doesn’t know, is that one of the treatments is better than the other. One group will receive this new drug and the other group will receive a placebo. Comparing this new treatment

The law effectively covers situations in which a patient can personally consider the effects of terminated treatments, but does not provide for situations in which the patient is incompetent to inform agents of their desires. Conflict occurs when the court requires evidence for consent to end lifesaving medical treatment, which could be otherwise avoided should the Act be amended to accommodate the needs of the patient (for example, conversations held in passing being held as evidence). The Act should be amended to allow families to make the judgment rather than the patient themselves (such as in Re BWV, Ex Parte Gardner (2003) 7 VR 487, 491[19]). Although it is possible to make decisions on a patient’s behalf, clarification by the Victorian state is needed. The legislation fails to make distinctions between the patient’s desires and what is in their best

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

Imagine a frail elderly woman laying in the nursing home in pain. This woman is 80 years old and has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and her heart cannot withstand treatment via radiation or chemotherapy. She has less than six months to live. Day in and day out you pass her room and hear her crying out from the immense pain. The pain medications are no longer working. She’s tired of fighting, tired of hurting, and tired of waiting to die. After consideration and discussions with her family she has decided to ask the doctor to help and end her life. The doctor feels remorse for the elderly lady and wants to help but cannot decide if it is the ethical thing to do because he knows that what he’s

De Bord, J. (2014). ETHICS IN MEDICINE University of Washington School of Medicine. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/consent.html

In this case, physician-assisted death is the action in question. Once foreseeable, outcomes are determined, utilitarians review the benefits and the consequences of a physician-assisted death for all the parties involved. Then, a course of action is selected that provides the most benefits and reduces the negative consequences. This approach is direct and logical.

One of the reasons opponents may propose against physician assisted death and Euthanasia has to do with the consent of the patient. There is a worry that because the patient is in an insurmountable amount of pain their judgment will be altered. Conversely, if the patient is not in insurmountable pain, then they are too inebriated from pain medication to make an intelligible decision. In either of the proposed situation the patient is unable to give consent knowledgeably (Class notes, 10/28). This argument, however, disregards the possibility of finding the balance of medication and pain for a patient to create a rational decision. Through discovering a balance of tolerable pain, the patient is then able to create

Opponents of this practice feel that patients may be too ill or worried that they will not be able to think through to exercise a real inform consent. The legality of physician-assisted suicide may interfere with good physician-patient relationship. Patients may feel that if their physician is willing to participate in the act, then, society and the doctor would prefer that death occur. This misunderstanding may further imply that the terminally ill people are expected to end their lives. Besides, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide increases the likelihood that death will become acceptable for other people such as the mentally disable, the physically challenged, and the elderly (Weiss & Lonnquist,

There are some ethical dilemmas evident in this scenario, starting with an End of life dilemma, refusal of care and informed consent.“End of

continue full treatment in accordance with patient’s desires or side with physicians and not intubate patient) we can reasonably argue that, under Utilitarian grounds, the act of not intubating her would be morally acceptable and ought to be the course of action that is followed. Such reasoning lies on the fact that a higher level of utility (happiness) would be achieved. In other words, because Utilitarianism determines acts as ethical or morally suspect based on consequences, the end results are what should be considered in who should decide and where should the line be drawn. That is, the concept of “maximizing the greatest good” is important in solving this case

Another question we come across in this case is "Should these pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make the drugs available to the people who they performed clinical trials on?". Again we clearly should see that the pharmaceutical companies should allow the access of these drugs to the people that are being used to test their products. There is a huge risk for these people who are taking a new drug, not knowing exactly what the outcome can be and are merely treated as guinea pigs for the

After reading this scenario about this patient, there are a few things that I wonder about and things that could have potentially contributed to this patient’s death. First, I do not understand why they did not place an Ewald tube down this patient and perform some sort of gastric lavage with activated charcoal (Gastric, 2017). They did all the work to stabilize the patient, but did not remove the remainder of the product, causing the acidosis. Basically, I feel that the patient came in with metabolic acidosis because of the aspirin, was stabilized, but then developed metabolic acidosis again. Which could have lead to a whole new list of complications to develop.