preview

Elizabeth Bouvia Case Study

Better Essays

In 1983 Elizabeth Bouvia, who was a 26-year-old quadriplegic that suffered from cerebral palsy, entered a hospital in Riverside, California wishing to starve herself to death. Elizabeth Bouvia suffered from cerebral palsy and severe arthritis causing her to be in chronic pain and close to being completely paralyzed. Bouvia was only able to make movement in some fingers on her right hand and make few facial movements. Elizabeth Bouvia was unable to sit up and could only lay flat causing her to be confined to her bed, and further causing her to depend on others for even the simplest tasks. Bouvia relied on others to feed her, bathe her, and help her defecate. Bouvia had no one in her life able to care for her around the clock like she needed, …show more content…

Quality of life, as defined by the patient’s interests and values, is a factor to be considered in determining what is best for the individual. It is permissible to consider quality of life when deciding about life-sustaining treatment” According to the AMA a patient perception of their quality of life and what they have to deal with on an everyday basis plays a role in a patients right to self-autonomy. When a patient has to make a decision regarding their medical treatment, they are rightfully permitted to take into consideration how they view their life, and what they want their quality of life to be. Elizabeth Bouvia viewed her quality of life poorly, and decided she no longer wanted to live a life where she had to struggle when dealing with the simplest of tasks. Taken from the NY Times Archives in article written by Marcia Chamber in April of 1986 the court stated, “…she herself is imprisoned and must lie physically helpless subject to the ignominy, embarrassment, humiliation, and dehumanizing aspects created by her helplessness”, Bouvia was the only one who could judge her quality of life which gave her the right to make any decision regarding her health she deemed best for herself, and the medical practitioners own burdens and views on quality of life could not have any …show more content…

While Bouvia had the right to self-autonomy, the medical practitioners also had an obligation to provide her with the medical care and treatment needed for her survival. Roger Higgs says in On Telling Patients the truth that “ The principal of beneficence – to work for the patient’s good – and the related principal of non-maleficence – ‘first do no harm’ – are usually quoted as the central guiding virtues in medicine.” (Higgs, 614) Here Higgs mentions another basic principal of medical ethics to be considered in Bouvia’s case, and that is of non-maleficence. When dealing with medical cases medical practitioners must keep in mind of the principle non-maleficence, where they have an obligation to prevent and do no harm on to patients. According to of Higgs’ statement of beneficence and non-maleficence being guiding virtues in medicine, Bouvia’s medical practitioners could not have sat around and watched Bouvia starve her self to death. Medical practitioners take a Hippocratic oath that underlies the medical ethics principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. This means if the medical practitioners did not try provide Bouvia with nutrition, and proper medical care they would not have been ‘working for the patients good’, and if the medical practitioners had just sat around watching their patient starve to death they would have been

Get Access