لخّصلي

Suppose that you are a healthcare providerworking at the acute medical ward during a respiratory pandemic. You are mainly responsible for supervising and offering care for cases of moderate to severe infections, including decisions on the need for using ventilators, which are in severe shortage due to the surge in patients’ admissions. Among the patients that are currently on ventilators is Mr. Sami, a 78-year-old male, who had multiple cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for years before admission. Mr. Sami is now in bad condition as a result of his recent infection. Based on medical opinions from senior consultants working at the same hospital, Mr. Sami is highly unlikely to recover, even with the continuous use of a ventilator. At the same time, another patient, Miss. Lamees has presented with moderate to severe respiratory infection, and she would clearly benefit from using a ventilator without which her condition is expected to deteriorate. However, no additional ventilators are available for use. A colleague suggests that you remove the ventilator from Mr. Sami, and use it to save the life of Miss. Lamees, knowing that this would mostly result in the immediate death of Mr. Sami. Discuss the ethical implication of potential action that can be done in this case, that is, keeping or removing the ventilator by writing a brief paper as illustrated by the expected output below.

This introduction dives into the world of ethical theories. These frameworks guide decision-making in tricky situations by emphasizing different aspects of the dilemma.

Here are the two main theories explored:

Deontology: This theory focuses on duties and obligations. Someone following this approach would make consistent choices based on their established principles.
Example: Imagine having money to treat either one patient with a rare disease (expensive) or five patients with a common, treatable illness. Deontology might say treating all five aligns with your duty to help as many as possible.
Utilitarianism: This theory emphasizes the consequences of actions. The choice that benefits the most people is considered the most ethical. It has two branches: act utilitarianism (focusing on the consequences of a single action) and rule utilitarianism (focusing on consequences of following general rules).
Example: A terminally ill patient asks if they'll be okay after surgery. Deontology might say you shouldn't lie for comfort, as lying is always wrong.

In the given case of allocating a ventilator between Mr. Sami and Miss. Lamees utilitarianism would support reallocating the ventilator to Miss. Lamees as it aims to maximize overall benefit by saving the life of the patient with a higher chance of recovery. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions and seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
On the other hand, deontology would raise ethical concerns about removing the ventilator from Mr. Sami as it involves directly causing harm to one individual to benefit another which goes against the principle of not causing harm to others. Deontology emphasizes following moral rules and duties regardless of the outcomes

The choice of whether to provide Miss Lamees a ventilator from Mr. Sami in a complicated medical situation requires balancing the concepts of beneficence and justice. In order to justify redistributing the ventilator in order to save a life, beneficenceis . emphasizes acting in the best interests of the whole. Justice, however, brings up issues with equitable resource distribution and the moral ramifications of giving one life in order to rescue another. In order to strike a balance between these ideals, healthcare decisions must take into account medical prognosis, patient autonomy, and the objective of maximizing total benefit while maintaining justice. In the end, resolving this ethical conundrum necessitates balancing the conflicting ideals, guaranteeing objectivity and equality in the allocation of resources, and respecting patient wishes (autonomy).

The speaker opposes favoring one individual over another, as seen in the dilemma of providing a respirator to Miss Lamis but not to Mr. Smith, which they perceive as discriminatory and contrary to the principle of nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence, a core principle in medical ethics, dictates that physicians must not harm patients and entails avoiding actions that cause pain, suffering, incapacitation, offense, or deprivation of life's goods. Practically, this means physicians must carefully balance the benefits and burdens of interventions, opting for those that are least burdensome and most beneficial for the patient. This principle is crucial in end-of-life care decisions, including those involving life-sustaining treatment, nutrition, hydration, and symptom control, with the aim of relieving suffering.