Name: Gliezyl Ann A.

Taburno______________ Date: _________________

Section Code: ______________

Case:
A case of Dax Cowart, a man who was severely burned by an accidental propane
explosion refused to undergo treatments and decided to die. Seeing how the burns
disabled the patient, the physicians forced treatment on him. Though he survived the
treatment, he still argues that he should have been allowed to refuse it so that he could
die.

Ethical Question:
Is it right for a physician to break a competent patient’s autonomy?
Respecting the autonomy of a patient is one of the core principles of medical ethics. For
whatever reason, patients have the right to refuse treatment, and doctors are expected to
respect that choice. The scenario challenges the idea of autonomy in some instances, and
considerations like as the patient's capacity to make decisions that could potentially
compromise judgment and the total benefit and harm must be taken into account. Given that
the answer depends on particular facts and careful ethical analysis, the question is
complicated. Though I would support the doctor's choice, each situation needs to be carefully
considered, striking a balance between respecting the patient's autonomy and ensuring their
well-being.

1. What is your position on this issue? Write out your claim in a complete sentence.
 In this case, I would agree with the doctors' decisions to step in and treat the
patient against their wishes because they are justified by the principle of
beneficence, which places a higher priority on the need to protect the patient's
health and well-being—even if doing so means compromising their autonomy in
some situations.

2. What is the factual content that can be used as evidence to support your position?
This factual content should be able to be confirmed or refuted regardless of
cultural or personal views.
 The factual content supporting my chosen position can be justified by the
principle beneficence including; the physician’s medical expertise wherein they
are being trained and equipped with all the knowledge and skills they need to
provide appropriate interventions to alleviate patient’s suffering and promote
healing, the healthcare professionals moral and ethical obligation which is o
prioritize patient’s well-being and safety, laws and ethical guidelines pertaining
 to healthcare workers intervening and providing treatment to prevent
foreseeable harm or death, and even if patient refuses treatment, there are
many opportunities for their condition to improve with medical intervention,
leading to a better quality of life.
3. What are the views and interests of the individuals or groups affected by the
decision that you think are most relevant to your position?
 The views and interests of both parties are the most relevant upon
supporting the position that the physician’s decision to intervene and provide
treatment can be justified by the principle of beneficence. The patient’s
perspective may desire for autonomy and control over their medical
intervention, particularly in cases involving severe pain and suffering,
Nonetheless, it's crucial to keep in mind that a patient's immediate interests in pain
relief and harm avoidance may coincide with the actions of medical professionals
in circumstances where their capacity to make decisions may be impaired or
where they are unable to fully understand the consequences of refusing treatment.
On the other hand, healthcare providers are obligated by law and ethical standards
to put their patients' health first. They frequently feel compelled to step in and stop
impending injury or ease suffering, even if it means sacrificing the patient's
autonomy. In order to guarantee that patients receive the right medical attention
while also upholding their autonomy as much as possible, it is imperative to strike
a balance between these conflicting objectives.

4. What ethical considerations can be included as evidence to support your position?

(Respect for Persons, Maximize Benefits/Minimize Harms, Justice)
 Including their right to make knowledgeable decisions regarding their medical
treatment. However, healthcare providers may ethically step in to protect the
patient's welfare in situations where the patient's capacity to make decisions is
impaired or if their refusal of treatment could cause serious injury. The
maximizing benefits and minimizing harms principle also emphasizes the need of
encouraging favorable outcomes. Healthcare practitioners want to maximize the
advantages to their patients by preventing additional harm, relieving pain, and
possibly even increasing their quality of life through medical intervention. Finally,
justice considerations place a strong emphasis on treating patients fairly and
allocating resources in an equal manner. When essential medical care is provided
via intervention, individuals are guaranteed equal access to treatment and are not
unjustly disadvantaged because they are unable to make informed decisions or
refuse care. Overall, these moral arguments provide credence to the idea that,
when the beneficence principle is followed, medical professionals' decisions to
intervene and treat patients can be morally acceptable.

5. Take the answers to Questions #1-4 and write a strong justification paragraph for
your decision on the topic. Make sure to use the evidence (such as the scientific
facts and ethical considerations) in support of your claim in a way that shows your
reasoning.
 Supporting people's choice to refuse medical care is based on both ethical and
practical concerns, especially when those circumstances include extreme pain and
suffering. Ethics-speaking, it is critical to protect patient autonomy since everyone
has the right to make knowledgeable decisions about their own bodies and
medical treatment. However, healthcare providers must put the beneficence
principle first when patients lack the capacity to make decisions because of
serious medical problems or reduced decision-making ability. This principle
includes the obligation to protect the patient from harm and to advance their well-
being, even if doing so occasionally involves sacrificing their autonomy.

Evidence showing that medical skill enables experts to evaluate the patient's
condition and choose the best type of therapy to reduce pain and avoid more
injury lends additional support to this option. Legal responsibilities also come into
play because, in many cases, particularly in emergency situations, healthcare
personnel are required to step in and treat patients in order to prevent foreseeable
harm or death. Ethical factors, such the maximization of benefits/minimization of
harms and justice principles, support the choice by highlighting how crucial it is to
encourage favorable results, avoid needless suffering, and guarantee equitable
resource allocation. Therefore, when motivated by the beneficence principle and
considerations for the well-being of the patient, it is morally appropriate to
support physicians' decisions to intervene and give treatment, even against the
wishes of the patient.