In the case of Dr. Claudio de la Rocha, the ethical concerns surrounding his actions revolve around the withdrawal of life support from a terminally ill patient and the subsequent administration of a noxious substance to hasten her death

QUESTION

Case Scenario

Case 1: Dr. Claudio de la Rocha

In October 1991, Ms. A, who had lung cancer and had been placed on a respirator at the former St. Mary’s Hospital in Timmins, Ont., informed family members that she wanted a breathing tube removed so that her suffering would end. They supported her decision and conveyed it to de la Rocha. In accordance with standard practice, he removed the tube and administered 40 mg of morphine in 3 doses to ensure that she did not experience a suffocating feeling. He broke with standard practice, however, by then administering potassium chloride, causing her heart to stop. In April 1993 he was convicted in criminal court of administering a noxious substance. His sentence was suspended, however, and he was given 3 years’ probation. In an April 1995 hearing before the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario he was charged with professional misconduct because of the conviction in court, as well as failure to maintain the standard of practice. He pleaded guilty to the first charge and the college did not proceed with the second. His penalty was a 90-day licence suspension that would be lifted if he wrote a guideline on withdrawing life support from terminally ill patients.2

f. Identify how 2 different Ethical theories would have the opposingviews with your topic. (i.e., can be ½ page or more)

v.Use the assumptions of two ethical theories; (deontology,utilitarianism, etc.) to explicate the ethical concerns within thecontemporary issue. This is the concern you introduced in yourintroduction.

Essay Format:

ii. Then choose one ethical theory including your rationaleto justify your argument.

Identify how two or three Ethical Principles are conflicted in yourethical dilemma essay. (i.e., can be ½ page or more)

i.Use the assumptions of two or three ethical principles (veracity,beneficence etc.) to explicate the ethical concerns of this issues

.ii.Then choose two or three ethical principles including yourrationale to justify your argument.

ANSWER

In the case of Dr. Claudio de la Rocha, the ethical concerns surrounding his actions revolve around the withdrawal of life support from a terminally ill patient and the subsequent administration of a noxious substance to hasten her death. Two ethical theories that would have opposing views on this topic are deontology and utilitarianism.

Deontology, a non-consequentialist ethical theory, emphasizes the importance of adhering to moral rules and duties, regardless of the consequences. According to deontological principles, Dr. de la Rocha’s actions can be seen as ethically wrong as he deviated from the standard medical practice of withholding life-sustaining treatment without a patient’s explicit consent. In this view, the act of intentionally causing a patient’s death, even to alleviate suffering, goes against the fundamental duty to preserve life.

On the other hand, utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing harm. From a utilitarian perspective, Dr. de la Rocha’s actions might be seen as ethically justifiable if they resulted in reducing the patient’s suffering and improving her quality of life. In this view, the end result of ending the patient’s suffering may outweigh the means of administering the noxious substance.

To justify my argument, I would lean towards the deontological perspective. While the goal of alleviating suffering is noble, intentionally hastening a patient’s death without proper consent violates the principles of autonomy and respect for persons. Medical professionals have a duty to uphold ethical standards and prioritize the well-being and rights of their patients.

The ethical principles that are conflicted in this dilemma include beneficence, autonomy, and veracity. Beneficence, the obligation to do good and promote the well-being of the patient, could be interpreted differently in this case, as Dr. de la Rocha might argue that he was acting in the best interest of the patient by ending her suffering. Autonomy, the principle of respecting the patient’s right to make their own decisions about their care, was violated when the patient’s request for the removal of the breathing tube was followed by the administration of the noxious substance without her explicit consent. Veracity, the principle of truth-telling and honesty, may have been compromised as the patient’s family members were not fully informed of the subsequent administration of potassium chloride.

In conclusion, the case of Dr. Claudio de la Rocha raises complex ethical issues surrounding end-of-life care, autonomy, and the duty of medical professionals. While utilitarianism might justify his actions based on the goal of reducing suffering, deontology emphasizes the importance of adhering to ethical principles and respecting the rights of the patient. The conflicting ethical principles of beneficence, autonomy, and veracity further complicate the ethical dilemma. In navigating such complex situations, it is essential for healthcare professionals to carefully consider the ethical implications of their actions and prioritize the well-being and autonomy of their patients.