This week, I read a case entitled \u201cConfronting Death: Who Chooses, Who Controls?,\u201d which contained dialogue between Dax Cowart and Dr. Robert Burt. Dax was injured in a terrible gas tank explosion that left him blind and without the use of his hands. His father was also killed during the accident. Throughout the seven years that he was treated in an acute burn ward, he continually requested that treatment be stopped because of the extreme pain that he was going through, and he attempted suicide three times. Despite being declared competent by his psychiatrist, the doctors ignored his requests and continued treatments until the skin grafts were done, and he was able to walk again. Once again, this case brings up the recurring issue of autonomy versus benevolence. The dilemma is whether or not the patient\u2019s power of autonomy should outweigh what the doctor believes is best for the patient. Should the patient be able to refuse life-saving treatment against doctor recommendation if he is deemed competent? Another question is whether or not the most benevolent act was actually to continue to treat the patient or let him die.<\/p>\n
I believe that the doctor\u2019s made the morally correct decision in treating Dax despite his competence and request to have treatment discontinued. Even though psychiatrists declared Dax competent, it doesn\u2019t mean that emotionally he was in the right state to make life or death decisions. He lost his dad in the same accident and was in an incredible amount of pain while he was refusing treatments. It is possible that despite his competence, his judgment was still clouded enough for him not to see that treatment was the best thing for him. Along with the doctors, his family also wanted treatments continued despite his requests.<\/p>\n
Usually when we see these cases of autonomy versus benevolence, the patient is refusing treatment and willing to die because he or she is terminal and simply speeding up the process of a quickly approaching, inevitable death. In this case, I don\u2019t necessarily believe the most benevolent act would be to keep the patient alive. If they are in an incredible amount of pain and the treatments are futile<\/em>, then I think refusing these treatments could be what is best for them. However, in Dax\u2019s case, he is initially refusing treatments because of the pain and possible quality of life (which he later admits was not a factor in his current happiness), but the treatments were going to save his life. And isn\u2019t that the doctor\u2019s duty? To save lives? Of course we want to know that our doctor\u2019s care about our opinions and aren\u2019t being paternalistic, but I would much rather know that my doctor is doing everything in his or her power to save my life than being passive and just waiting for me to tell them what to do. Along with doing what is best for the patient, I would go as far to say that it is a doctor\u2019s moral obligation<\/em> to save lives when they can be saved. And while it is true that doctors can\u2019t know exactly how much pain their patient is going through, I think it is safe to say that they understand pain more than a normal person. They\u2019ve seen enough pain in their patients to know roughly what can be handled and what cannot. It\u2019s not like they\u2019re completely lacking in understanding of what it means to be in pain. Therefore, I don\u2019t believe Dax\u2019s doctors were acting purely paternalistically when they ignored Dax\u2019s requests and continued to treat him. I believe they were doing what was best for their patient and fulfilling their moral duty by saving his life.<\/p>\n Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress.\u00a0Principles of Biomedical Ethics<\/em>. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.<\/p>\n Cowart, Dax, and Robert Burt. \u201cConfronting Death Who Chooses, Who Controls?\u201d The Hastings Center Report 28.1 (1998): 14-24. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This week, I read a case entitled \u201cConfronting Death: Who Chooses, Who Controls?,\u201d which contained dialogue between Dax Cowart and Dr. Robert Burt. Dax was injured in a terrible gas tank explosion that left him blind and without the use of his hands. His father was also killed during the accident. Throughout the seven years … Continue reading Dax’s Case<\/span>