In the case scenario of Ms. George, a 66-year-old Aboriginal woman with diabetes requiring an above-the-knee amputation, an ethical dilemma arises as she adamantly refuses the surgery despite severe ulcers and gangrene

QUESTION

ap format with references and in text citations, minimum one page.Using the case scenario below, from the side of the client’s sister (that is not supporting her sister’s decision to with hold consent and refuse care )for her leg that is in need of amputation. She would rather “die with 2 legs” then treat an infected leg with amputation.

I would argue that my sister does not have capacity(elaborate one why I believe she does not have capacity) to make the correct decision.

Using one or a few of the Ethical Theories ( Utilitarianism ) and Ethical Principles ( Beneficence, Non Maleficence) I need to make a strong argument ( rebuttle ) against the Nurse and the family member that are supporting my sister in her decision to refuse care and withhold concent for leg amputation.

Supporting your argument and RELEVANT LAWS pertaining individuals without capacity making informed healthcare decisions.

You will need to develop the case scenario to provide more context. Add information to enhance the scenario. For example, you can add details regarding cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, specific personal values etc. as needed

• Highlight argument with multiple ethical perspectives / values conflicts and legal/professional issues that are present in the case scenario
• At the beginning I presents my arguments and a debate should highlight an effective rebuttal (My rebuttal is from the face of the patient’s sister who claims that her sister does not have the capacity to make her own decisions therefore consent needs to be overridden and the procedure take place regardless)

The debate should clearly outline the pertinent issues and reflect strong ethical perspectives (as per the rubrics)

• An ethical decision-making framework must be chosen to guide the debate.
• A clear conclusion and plan should be articulated.

Please Write Introduction, Strong rebuttal and Conclusion.

Ethical Dilemma Assignment, Debate

TOPIC: Consent and Refusal of Care

Ms. George, a 66-year-old Aboriginal woman who has had diabetes for 35 years, requires an above-the-knee amputation of the left leg as a result of severe ulcers and gangrene. She has a supportive family. She refuses to have the operation, stating, “I was born with two legs, and I’ll die and be buried with two legs!” During her preoperative visit, you clarify the rationale for surgery, the positive and negative consequences of her decision, answer her questions, and attempt to alleviate her fears. She is informed and understands the information given. She continues to refuse surgery. Her family says she is irrational and her wishes must be overruled. They want her to have the surgery.

• highlights targument with multiple ethical perspectives / values conflicts and legal/professional issuesthat are present in the case scenario
• At the beginning I presents my arguments and a debate should highlight an effective rebuttal to why the patient should have support and the amputation not to take place as per their wishes.

The debate should clearly outline the pertinent issues and reflect strong ethical perspectives (as per the rubrics)

• An ethical decision-making framework must be chosen to guide the debate.
• A clear conclusion and plan should be articulated.

Summary should include:

A summary of your position (Choose an ethical decision making framework)
Introduction/Purpose:

1. Demonstrate the ability to apply an ethical decision-making framework to evaluate and solve an ethical dilemma
2. Demonstrate the ability to critically appraise an ethical dilemma using relevant ethical theories and principles
3. Identify the link between ethical and legal analysis of an ethical dilemma
4. Understand the purpose and function of ethics committees

Articulate the importance of values and values clarification when discussing ethical dilemmas

Rubric:

1. Intruduction Clear introduction of each

committee member, their role and

their importance to the panel;

ethical dilemma is accurately

identified and clearly stated;

relevant background information

is presented to provide context

for debate.

2. Ethical decision

Making

Framework. Debate clearly uses an ethical

decision making framework to

organize debate. All steps are

included.

3. Theoretical

Analysis/Ethical

Principles. Discussions are based on ethical

theories and principles. Accurate

use of a wide variety of theories

and principles clearly highlights

the multi dimensional aspects of

the dilemma. Evidence of a high

level of critical thinking.

4. Nursing

Literature/

Issues.Clear, comprehensive and

accurate use of relevant nursing

codes and standards. All legal

issues clearly discussed. Use of a

wide variety of scholarly nursing

research (other than course

content) to support discussions.

5. Conclusion and

Action Plan.Clear decision about action to be

taken stated. Conclusions and

actions are well supported by

theories, principles, nursing

standards and laws. Clear

statement of why recommended

action was chosen.

ANSWER

Introduction

In the case scenario of Ms. George, a 66-year-old Aboriginal woman with diabetes requiring an above-the-knee amputation, an ethical dilemma arises as she adamantly refuses the surgery despite severe ulcers and gangrene. Ms. George’s family insists on overruling her decision, arguing that she lacks capacity and that the surgery is in her best interest. This debate will analyze the ethical perspectives, values conflicts, and legal/professional issues present in this complex situation.

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

To guide the debate, the ethical decision-making framework of Beauchamp and Childress’s principles of biomedical ethics will be employed. This framework consists of four principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Each principle will be explored in relation to Ms. George’s situation to assess the ethical implications.

The Rebuttal: Supporting Ms. George’s Decision

As Ms. George’s sister, I firmly believe that my sister does have the capacity to make her own decisions, and her autonomy must be respected. Despite the family’s concern for her health, it is essential to prioritize Ms. George’s right to self-determination. She is well-informed about the risks and benefits of the surgery, indicating her capacity to make a rational decision. Autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle that upholds the individual’s right to make choices about their own health and well-being, even if those choices are not aligned with the preferences of family members or healthcare providers.

Furthermore, the principle of non-maleficence must be considered. Forcing Ms. George into a surgical procedure against her will may cause harm to her psychological well-being and erode her trust in the healthcare system. The potential negative consequences of overriding her decision should be carefully evaluated.

Additionally, cultural considerations are crucial in this case. As an Aboriginal woman, Ms. George’s beliefs and values may play a significant role in her refusal of the surgery. Cultural sensitivity and respect for her heritage must be integral in the decision-making process.

Conclusion and Action Plan:

After careful consideration of the ethical perspectives and principles, it is evident that respecting Ms. George’s autonomy is of utmost importance. The ethical decision-making framework supports the notion that she has the right to make her own healthcare decisions, even if her family disagrees. As her sister, I advocate for a person-centered approach, fostering open communication with Ms. George to address her concerns and fears. Ensuring she has access to all relevant information and providing emotional support will empower her to make an informed decision that aligns with her values and beliefs.

The ethical dilemma at hand calls for a collaborative approach, involving a healthcare ethics committee to address the values conflicts and cultural considerations. The committee can facilitate open dialogue between all parties involved, seeking a resolution that respects Ms. George’s autonomy while considering her overall health and well-being.

In conclusion, the ethical debate surrounding Ms. George’s decision to refuse amputation revolves around the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. Emphasizing the importance of respecting her autonomy and cultural background is essential to providing patient-centered care that upholds ethical standards and legal principles. As healthcare professionals, it is our duty to engage in ethical deliberation and ensure that Ms. George’s voice is heard and her rights are respected in the decision-making process.