Alzheimer's Dilemma Case
Introduction and Background
The care of terminal patients is often difficult and ethically challenging. The standards of competent and compassionate care that characterized a previous generation seem to be wavering, replaced by a post-modern mélange of newer conflicting theories and ethical values.
A shift from deontological principles to utilitarianism has occurred in the past thirty years, corresponding with the rise of the modern bioethics movement (Rae & Cox, 1999). Many members of an increasingly aging population are denied their autonomy on the basis of mental incompetence. The most common cause of the loss of competence is Alzheimer’s disease, which may afflict up to 50% of individuals 85 years and older (Alzheimer’s Disease, 2003). …show more content…
This assumes that other medications have failed, and that imminent death makes addiction irrelevant. If such treatment hastens the death of the patient, but this was an unintended consequence of the intent to relieve suffering, then the act may be morally permissible (Jochemsen, 1996).
This principle applies to the case of Mr. M. As stated earlier, neither the patient nor his physicians intended his death. They did, however, intend to relieve him from a burdensome and futile treatment; his death was an unintended consequence. According to the principle of double effect, the action was justified.
Robert Orr and colleagues would not even call this act euthanasia: “Withdrawing or withholding treatment or artificial means of life support in someone who is dying is not euthanasia at all – not even ‘passive’ euthanasia – but acceptable, humane, and an often necessary part of everyday medical practice” (Orr, Schiedermayer, & Biebel, 1990, p. 152). More succinctly, Jochemsen has said: “Stopping disproportional medical treatment has always been good medical practice” (Jochemsen, 1996, p.
The care of terminal patients is often difficult and ethically challenging. The standards of competent and compassionate care that characterized a previous generation seem to be wavering, replaced by a post-modern mélange of newer conflicting theories and ethical values.
A shift from deontological principles to utilitarianism has occurred in the past thirty years, corresponding with the rise of the modern bioethics movement (Rae & Cox, 1999). Many members of an increasingly aging population are denied their autonomy on the basis of mental incompetence. The most common cause of the loss of competence is Alzheimer’s disease, which may afflict up to 50% of individuals 85 years and older (Alzheimer’s Disease, 2003). …show more content…
This assumes that other medications have failed, and that imminent death makes addiction irrelevant. If such treatment hastens the death of the patient, but this was an unintended consequence of the intent to relieve suffering, then the act may be morally permissible (Jochemsen, 1996).
This principle applies to the case of Mr. M. As stated earlier, neither the patient nor his physicians intended his death. They did, however, intend to relieve him from a burdensome and futile treatment; his death was an unintended consequence. According to the principle of double effect, the action was justified.
Robert Orr and colleagues would not even call this act euthanasia: “Withdrawing or withholding treatment or artificial means of life support in someone who is dying is not euthanasia at all – not even ‘passive’ euthanasia – but acceptable, humane, and an often necessary part of everyday medical practice” (Orr, Schiedermayer, & Biebel, 1990, p. 152). More succinctly, Jochemsen has said: “Stopping disproportional medical treatment has always been good medical practice” (Jochemsen, 1996, p.