Often times in our modern society life is valued far more highly than it should be. This weeks readings had a case on informed consent. Where the complication occurred where a patient was asked for consent and her life was at risk yet refused to be treated. Yet regardless of the doctors advice, her deep seated beliefs caused her to refuse surgery. Normally that would be the end of that yet her family all gave consent and even called into question her competency. In this case I would argue to let her follow out her wishes, barring complications to the case such as mental illness or drug abuse, she was making a conscious informed decision with the doctor having informed her thoroughly about the procedure and her chances of survival without. If she wants to take her chances, I would say let her.
While this may seem cold, there is one truth in economics and that is there is scarcity. With 7 billion people on this planet and growing there is no shortage of human life. Here’s a fun fact, it takes $2.8 million per prisoner per year for Guantanamo bay. The average American household incomes is only 50,000. That’s 5-6 families worth of money per year we are spending on prisoners.
How is this related to consent? This case reminded me of another controversy regarding saving someones life against there will. When prisoners go on hunger strikes, they are force fed to keep the alive. One recent one is the Guantanamo bay force feeding sessions (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/03/guantanamo-force-feeding-videos-released). Something that is against there will, without consent, and yet is done in the name of preserving life. So is life preservation so noble a goal anymore when it comes down to something like this and when it costs so much?
What I understood from the above is that life is overpriced and that there is no scarcity of humans but rather a surplus of lives. I know this was said with all respect and good intentions. However, I need to point out that life is priceless to many people and worthless to others. If we are dealing with what is ethical to do, then we should implement the moral principles of virtuous human conduct. A doctor’s job is to save life; and when one goes to a doctor, he goes to ask the doctor for help in curing his diseases and saving his life. In Maries François’s case there is more than refusing a lifesaving surgery. There is the issue of distrust, bad experience, and most important the PHOBIA of operating once again. She is in a state of shock and severe pain. To me, she is incompetent and incapable of deciding the best for her. Hence upon, her family should take the decision on her behalf. HER LIFE IS PRICELESS. To them, she means the world and they are ready to do all what is available to save her life. The dilemma here is to respect her autonomy vs. non-maleficence. Definitely, the doctor should operate and consider her incompetent of taking decision. Life is so precious and especially doctors should do all what can be done to save her life.
When someone is spotted trying to commit suicide, ethically he should be stopped. Prisoners though are sources of insecurity and harm to others, ethically should be punished for their doings and helped to change into better people, EXCEPT for criminals who took the lives of others. It is a crime to kill oneself, kill others, or stand carelessly watching others losing their life while they can be stopped. It is true that autonomy should be respected but whenever there is a slight doubt with incompetency, then non-maleficence over rules.
There is only ONE Marie Francois, though there is a big surplus of women her age. Every life means the world to their beloved ones. Life is not overpriced, but rather life is irreplaceable.
Hey, Steven. Thank you for your post, for I enjoyed reading about a different perspective on human life. However, an economic perspective on the value of life makes me a bit uncomfortable. Nonetheless, money drives the medical system in the United States as it operates under a fee-per-service financial arrangement. Thus, I agree that economics play an influential role in medical decisions. However, a physician should not forgo treatment options as a way to save the system money. Instead, a physician should respect the autonomy of the patient and his or her decision on medical treatment rather than feel a sense of relief. Moreover, although the prisoners are participating in a hunger strike, one cannot determine their motivation for the refusal to eat. For example, you implied that the prisoners wish to die. However, perhaps the prisoners are protesting the poor food options, and they do not actually wish to die. Therefore, perhaps the prisoners would appreciate the force feeding as a way to remain alive until the message of the inadequate nutrition reaches the authorities. Thus, one should not analyze the economics of sustaining life in the context of the prisoners either, for prisoners still hold the same moral status of a human.
See, while I firmly agree with the idea that too much of federal spending is aimed towards incarcerated people, I don’t think it has much to do with this scenario. The person wasn’t a prisoner. Every life should be valued. I think it is a physician’s duty to protect every patient’s life and to do everything that is possible to treat every patient. In this case, the patient declines treatment. And while this is a perfect example of honoring one’s autonomy, I can’t help but to believe that one’s wish to die should not be fully acknowledged until they are experiencing chronic pain that is untreatable.