discussion but the most dominant was the Principle-Based Model in which resolutions are guided by principles and rules around “respect for persons, autonomy, beneficence, no maleficence and justice” (Hamric, Spross & Hanson, 2009, p. 324). During her lucid moments the patient’s nurses and doctors gathered that she wanted her family involved and though the fiancée does not want this, the committee is devoted to making sure the patient’s autonomy is respected by siding with family involvement. Also at this time there is no suspicion that the decisions made by the family are not in the patient’s best interest. Some committee members use casuistry theories, relating past cases/situation to this one and decisions that were taken in the past. It is then agreed that the case will be reviewed again after the court hearing scheduled for next month. To address the second topic, life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker, members use preventive ethics principles. Here the discussion does not revolve around a current case/issue but instead, around recent research and the impact it may have in the hospital should such a case arise. A few cases have come up in the past with regards to the topic of who should bear the responsibility of decision making where there is not a surrogate decision maker. The committee, using preventive ethics thus sought to review what policies the hospital has in place so far and develop them further to accommodate this evolving wing. As the dialogues progress members’ conflicting morals and values become clear. The question is that in cases where nothing is known about patient preferences, the patient for one reason or another is unable to
discussion but the most dominant was the Principle-Based Model in which resolutions are guided by principles and rules around “respect for persons, autonomy, beneficence, no maleficence and justice” (Hamric, Spross & Hanson, 2009, p. 324). During her lucid moments the patient’s nurses and doctors gathered that she wanted her family involved and though the fiancée does not want this, the committee is devoted to making sure the patient’s autonomy is respected by siding with family involvement. Also at this time there is no suspicion that the decisions made by the family are not in the patient’s best interest. Some committee members use casuistry theories, relating past cases/situation to this one and decisions that were taken in the past. It is then agreed that the case will be reviewed again after the court hearing scheduled for next month. To address the second topic, life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker, members use preventive ethics principles. Here the discussion does not revolve around a current case/issue but instead, around recent research and the impact it may have in the hospital should such a case arise. A few cases have come up in the past with regards to the topic of who should bear the responsibility of decision making where there is not a surrogate decision maker. The committee, using preventive ethics thus sought to review what policies the hospital has in place so far and develop them further to accommodate this evolving wing. As the dialogues progress members’ conflicting morals and values become clear. The question is that in cases where nothing is known about patient preferences, the patient for one reason or another is unable to
ethical_decision_making.docx