This paper is an assessment of the medical case study of a young girl and the prognosis that is given to her. The case study depicts Kant’s considerations that are based on the factors of risk and truthfulness. We begin by discussing the medical conditions and factors that acted as causality and the solutions that are put across by the medical staff. By doing this we best explain the established thoughts brought about by Kant’s theory on medical evaluation.
In reference to the case study, we learn that the girl who is five years of age has been diagnosed with severe renal failure meaning that she is not responding well to the chronic renal dialysis. There have been several discussions on the possible alternatives used to help the girl. These treatments are rather aggressive but at the end offer the child a survival chance if the treatment is given. The best consideration given is the kidney transplant that can be stemmed from the family. Due to unforeseen circumstances neither the siblings nor the mother are genetically compatible to donate part of their organ to the child. The father becomes the only suitable donor in this scenario but in light of the situation at hand, he refuses to donate giving the physician several reasons.
The Kant theory is split into two parts; the utilitarian and the physician’s point of view. As a utilitarian form of thinking would suggest, Kant’s evaluation on this matter is that the father undertake the action that is considered to be a larger step to obligatory purposes.
As the physician suggested, there are various accounts to consider on their part as form of the moral predicament that accompanies their judgments. Such matters as the sociological and psychological considerations of the father have to be included in the decision making. The utilitarian view is opposed to this and recommends that all facets of the information be taken into consideration.
Mrs. X’s competence to refuse medical treatment.
The paper below is a discussion on the right to refuse medical treatment in regards to the determination of legal correspondence to the death that the patients accept on themselves. This paper considers the patient Mrs. X who s diagnosed with a recurrence of a highly treatable form of cancer which has been in remission for the past six years. The patient has been given the best alternatives that may help her get better again but the she refuses the treatment which is an aggressive course of chemotherapy,
The decisions made by the patient are perceived to be the culmination of previous courses of the chemotherapy which many have complained that it leaves them weak and in pain. Mrs. X in her own distinctions says that the chemotherapy destroyed her body. The paper thus sheds a light on Mrs. X’s decision not to get treatment and the eventual consequences of doing so. We keep in mind that the patient has a fifteen year old daughter at home who is dependent on her.
As part of the assessment made by the staff in charge, the capacity to make any decisions towards the treatment of a patient is best left to the patients themselves and where they are incapacitated; the next of kin has both the moral and legal obligation to decide the best alternative for the ill person.
The case above is a depiction of how fixing the cause of death can be very important in many aspects such as the legal point of view. There is a difference between killing someone or letting them die which creates a fundamental premise is that no matter the difference we all have to die in some way. Mrs. X’s decision is both costly and reasonable at the same time.
The Professional Model of the Failure of ‘Due Care’.
The paper below is a discussion on the use of the professional model and shows how the use of ‘due care’ and its failure may be connected in the hospital environment. A patient, Mr. G had a surgery and was paralyzed afterwards thus instigating a law-suit on the clinic that operated on him. This sheds light to the validity of distinctions when considering the actions partaken by the staff to heal a patient.
The case study is of a man who is a fifty nine year old named Mr. G. The patient was in need of burr-hole drainage of subdural hematoma which causes the patient to fall. The disease is a situation where there is a collection of blood around the brain. The night before the surgery, the procedure was laid out to the patient with the risks and benefits being emphasized. The patient agreed to the terms of the consent form. Later after the surgery the patient was unfortunately hit by a case of paralysis that may have been due to the surgery that was done before. The main question arises on the basis of what caused the paralysis.
Due to the improper placement of the catheters in the blood vessels, the first paralysis occurred and even after corrections were made by the doctor, the condition still ensued. The patient continued suffering from the left side paralysis and pain which resulted in a weakened state. The doctor was liable as he did not inform the patient in the first place about the catheters and went ahead to place them incorrectly. Without proper information the patient made a bad decision causing the paralysis and this can be put on the doctor due to his negligence of ‘due care’ before operating on the patient.
Callahan’s three dimensions which distinguish between killing and allowing dying.
Death has been part of the society’s way of living since before history could be documented. Every living thing undergoes a cycle of life which has to end at some point. The choice of death that occurs has either been categorized as external and internal with the distinctions being explained by Callahan’s three dimensions. To explain further, the external factors may be such as nature or accidents while the internal factors may be placed as diseases and aging which cannot be stopped.
Callahan imposes that the distinction between the causality of death is prudent and valid for the sake of the practitioners who have knowledge of the human anatomy and physiology. There are three perspectives in this case; metaphysical, moral and medical perspectives. Finding the cause of death is an important step to understanding euthanasia which is either in the passive form or current form.
The first perspective that is the metaphysical aspect of the dimension illustrates the sharp contrast of killing and allowing a person to die. The issue at hand with the theory is that we as humans have a limited control over the external environment and even though modern day science has helped prolonging the lifespan, such eventualities as aging are still part of us and thus the distinction of this death can be distinguished. Morality shows the intent of thought when one is removing the life of a person thus being crucial in understanding the motive behind this. Medical perspective implies that the life is already unsustainable by itself and is held in place through artificial means. Callahan deduced that where the results of removing life from such a person are pertinent, it may be a care given as the cause of death then becomes the fated illness.
The question that Dr. Q is killing Ms. A then becomes improbable as the life support system is artificial and because of the brain damage the body cannot support itself. According to Callahan, the metaphysical state of Ms. A is challenged and as such the moral view that the family accepts the shutting off of the support system comes from a medical perspective as stated above.
