In many situations, patients lack the competency needed to make decisions regarding their health. In these situations, a surrogate is usually appointed. The surrogate is then empowered to make decisions on behalf of the patient. The surrogate is required to make decisions that safeguard the welfare and enhance the health of the patient (Baillie et al., 2013). In the case of J, his father is acting unethically for refusing to let doctors conduct the operation to fix his cleft palate and harelip.
One of the principles that guide the actions of surrogate concerns best interest. This principle requires surrogates to make decisions that serve the best interest of the patient (Baillie et al., 2013). That it is in J’s best interest to receive the operation goes without question. Through this operation, his harelip and palate will be fixed. The operation will restore his confidence and allow him to function normally. Refusing to permit the operation is unethical and goes against the best interest principle. Since they are required to consult with and follow the directions of the surrogate, the doctors need to persuade J’s father that the operation will do J remarkable good. Another issue that should be considered is the social implication of the refusal of J’s father to approve the operation. It is noted in the case that he is a believer in mental healing. This suggests that personal beliefs are the key factor that is shaping his decision. He is not seeking J’s best interest but simply trying to remain faithful to his personal convictions. This is a violation of the best interest principle.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case, it is mentioned that J is reluctant to proceed with the operation. His desire is that the doctors should allow natural forces to facilitate J’s healing. It is indeed important to consider J’s wishes. However, no weight should be attached to J’s opinion. At only 14, J is too young to understand what is best for him. It is for this reason that his father has been made the surrogate in the first place. Since J is apprehensive about the operation and his father is strongly opposed to the operation, the courts are the hospital’s only option. The hospital should appeal to the courts to order the operation to proceed. The court order will effectively bypass J’s father and ensure that J receives the care that he desperately needs. This case underscores the complexities and ethical dilemmas that practitioners face. It also serves to remind practitioners of the need to follow ethical guidelines.
Reference
Baillie, H. W., McGeehan, J., Garrett, T. M. & Garrett, R. M. (2013). Principles of
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence. In Health Care Ethics. Sixth Edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
