1

Ethics Case Analysis

Name

Instructor

Institution

Course

Date

Ethical Analysis of Michael Hickson's Case

The instance of Michael Hickson in the problematic arena of medical ethics in healthcare

stands as a revisionary object lesson in search of extensive exploration into the moral standards

and decision-making practices that govern the treatment of disabled people. The complex

interplay of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, application, and justice, presented in this

case, makes for a sturdy history of moral analysis. Michael's adventure, as the coalescence of

medical complexities and the moral consideration of figuring out the quality of lifestyles, forms a

foundation of an important exam of the reaction of the healthcare system to disabled humans for

the duration of an endemic. The information of Michael's case necessitates an introspective look

into the value machine of healthcare and the consequences of such practices. Therefore, an

ethically strong approach should be explored in decision-making.

Ethical Issues

The presented case raises multiple ethical issues, prevailingly concerning the quality of

life for disabled humans, the possible biases in the choice-making of scientists towards disabled

people, and also the difficult balance between administering aggressive treatment to them and
 2

dealing with the problems of futility. A significant point of competition arises in the war between

Melissa Hickson and the clinical team, pivoting around divergent perspectives on Michael's

satisfaction with life, the appropriateness of interventions, and the exploration of alternative

remedy modalities (Shapiro, 2020). The ethical discourse is underscored using the nuanced

assessment of the ethical implications surrounding the subjective determination of a disabled

person's fine of existence and the ethical issues associated with determining the appropriateness

of clinical interventions. The interplay of those variables amplifies the complexity of healthcare

decision-making for people with disabilities. At the core, the ethical discussion in this situation is

on the crux of the thorny moral issues that arise from the juncture where incapacity, clinical

decision-making, and seeking of acceptable and beneficial interventions overlap (12 COVID

Autopsy Cases Reveal the TRUTH “HOW COVID PATIENTS DYING,” n.d.; Shapiro, 2020).

Application of Vaughn's Five Moral Principles

Primarily, regarding autonomy, the core principle focuses on the individual's right to

participate in the decisions relating to their own life. Regarding Michael's case, he is deprived of

patient autonomy because the entire medical team takes the process by force with no input. It

goes against the principle of autonomy, which requires a doctor to respect the patient's choice

and involve him actively in the decision-making process. Secondly, the principle of

nonmaleficence, which requires healthcare professionals not to cause harm, obliges a thorough

assessment of the decision to terminate Michael's treatment. Whether the erstwhile choice

reflects the principle of nonmaleficence must be evaluated. An ethically questionable decision is

based on prejudices or presumptions about Michael's quality of life without a complete analysis

of his medical situation.

 3

Thirdly, the principle of beneficence or well-being requires looking for alternative

treatment options likely to benefit Michael. The discussion of options such as Remdesivir further

defines the ethical duty of the medical team to make and have these alternatives known to the

family. In this regard, beneficence requires actions that aid the restoration of Michael's health.

Fourth, the principle of utility, which focuses on the greatest good for many, requires an

appraisal of the decisions made concerning Michael. This appraisal implies carefully analyzing

therapeutic aggressiveness effects against potential harms and futility. If Michael's condition

might be improved by using more aggressive treatments, then the principle of utility requires that

such interventions be pursued. Finally, justice as a moral virtue relates to fairness in healthcare

provision. To guarantee that decisions are unbiased, stereotype-free, or any discriminatory

attitude towards persons with disabilities is essential. This case carries important ethical issues,

mainly regarding the evaluation of the pleasant lifestyles for humans with disabilities, potential

biases influencing scientific selection-making closer to disabled people, and the difficult balance

between administering aggressive treatment and confronting troubles of futility.

Analysis and Recommendations

The moral scrutiny of Michael Hickson's case well-known shows widespread

apprehensions concerning the ideas of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.

Primarily focusing on protecting Michael's autonomy, reviewing other therapeutic ways, and

safeguarding the medical decisions against the likely bias or presumptions concerning his quality

of life is paramount. Ethical dilemmas such as these call for a decision-making process that

involves the patient and the patient's family and is unswervingly patient-oriented. This points to

the necessity of a holistic, inclusive approach in health decision-making involving the patient and
 4

family members, at least bringing their voices into the ethical resolution of complex healthcare

dilemmas.

In conclusion, the moral analysis of Michaеl Hickson's casе brings out thе nuances of

hеalthcarе decision-making in rеlation to human beings with disabilitiеs. The concurring of

autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, software, and justice highlights the ethical dilemmas

exercised by fitness care companies in dealing with complicated treatment cases. Considering the

specifics of Michael's state of affairs, it's obvious that the clinical selections require re-

evaluation, presenting an option supportive of the affected person's autonomy, thinking about the

possibility of other remedies, and being wise to the biases influencing the choice-making system

in healthcare. The Case appears as an acute reminder of the ethical standards in healthcare that

recommend inclusivity, equity, and shared selection-making strategies that serve the blessings of

every character, along with the disabled network.

 5

References

12 COVID Autopsy Cases Reveal the TRUTH “HOW COVID PATIENTS DYING.” (n.d.).

Www.youtube.com. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6h8TIxeg1g&ab_channel=DoctorMikeHansen

Shapiro, J. (2020). One Man’s COVID-19 Death Raises The Worst Fears Of Many People With

Disabilities. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/31/896882268/one-mans-covid-19-

death-raises-the-worst-fears-of-many-people-with-disabilities