This paper discusses the first case study, where an elderly man was found unconscious and taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital. As the case study states, the elderly man had a tattoo on his chest, which read, Do Not Resuscitate. Evidently, the hospital staff was in a dilemma concerning the right course of action. Surely enough, they adhered to the message of the tattoo but the man later died. The aim of this paper is to argue that a utilitarian would applaud the hospital staff for doing the right thing. For coherence purpose, key terms will first be defined, then the premises of the utilitarianism argument will be presented. Thirdly, a counter-argument of the utilitarian premises will be presented and finally the merits of the utilitarian response will be discussed.
The two most prominent terms in this case are ethics and utilitarianism. Ethics refer to morally sound decisions. In life, it is common for people to be faced with challenging situations whose solutions involve some sort of compromise. However, people have to always pick a solution that is more justifiable or ethical. Utilitarianism is a type of ethics that looks at the consequences before a decision is made (Shaw, 2016). It is also referred to as a consequentialist theory. In utilitarianism, actions are not more important than the results. Usually, if an outcome causes pain to a few people but is beneficial to many people, a utilitarian considers the decision ethical. For instance, if a country is threatened by insurgents or another country and is drawn into war, soldiers are sent to fight. Soldiers usually represent their citizens during the war. During the war, some soldiers may die. People may grief, ask questions, and blame the government for sending the soldiers to the war. However, the death of the few soldiers is necessary for the survival of the whole country. Therefore, a utilitarian would argue that the death of the few soldiers is ethical.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Delving into the case study, there is a lot that is at stake. First is the life of the patient. Conventional wisdom requires healthcare workers to do anything they can to save the lives of patients. It is the prominent reason why healthcare centers are set up. However, the case in question is unique. The patient does not want to be resuscitated. To make the message even clearer, the word NOT is underlined. The patient is an old man who might have endured a lot of suffering for his condition. He could have probably made up his mind that he was ready to die. Additionally, he might have had the full knowledge that resuscitation was the only way through which he could survive. The message is also written on the chest, meaning that he probably had heart problems before and wanted to die.
At this juncture, it is important to pose the question, what was the most likely consequences if the hospital staff ignored the message of the patient? First, the patient would have survived. However, he would have sued the hospital staff for ignoring his wish. It is common for elderly people to leave wishes before their death. There are even those who want to be assisted to die because of the suffering they go through. Some do not just want to be a burden to people who are close to them. Following the legal suit, there would have been several repercussions for both the hospital and the staff. First, the staff would have lost their jobs or made to compensate the elderly man. It is also possible for the hospital to be closed down for going against the wishes of the patient. Secondly, the elderly man would have gone through more suffering due to his condition or even become a burden to his close relations. The closure or suspension of the staff would have affected the community negatively. There would be no treatment of patients, an aspect that could even cause death of more patients. Lastly, the image of the hospital could have been tainted.
On a positive note, following the patient’s message as it was later realized was the right thing to do. It had been the wish of the elderly man to die. Secondly, there were no consequences to the hospital and the staff. The hospital, therefore, operated as normal, promoting the wellbeing of the community. Thirdly, nobody regretted for the action they had taken. In fact, the staff was relieved upon discovering that they were right to adhere to the message of the patient. If anyone raised any questions, they would justify their actions.
Critics of the action taken by the hospital would argue that life is so precious. They would also add that the death of the elderly man might have caused a lot of pain to his close relatives or the people who loved him. The decision made by the hospital staff was arrived at after examining the immediate consequences both to the hospital and themselves. The most immediate consequence was the compensation involved if the patient survived and sued them. The second was the time they would take during the legal battle. In that perspective, critics can argue that the decision was selfish because they were the ones to incur the consequences. There was also no guarantee that the services of the hospital would stop if the elderly man was to sue them. The hospital management would have also defended themselves that their responsibility is to enhance the wellbeing of patients and not to help them die. Secondly, they would argue that the elderly man did not have anybody accompanying him and, therefore, they were doubtful of the message in the tattoo. In case any legal action was taken against the hospital, patients have many alternatives; they can seek for health services in other hospitals.
The merit of the utilitarian argument first is that the action of the hospital staff was supported by the law. The elderly man had already sought legal reinforcement on his wish. Secondly, if the elderly man was resuscitated and lived, he would have gone through more suffering for his condition. Perhaps the most significant merit is that the hospital staff avoided transferring undesirable consequences to their dependents. Compensating the elderly man would have caused a strain to the hospital and staff. Healthcare workers would have to forego their needs to pay the elderly man. Perhaps the services of the hospital would have also deteriorated if a fine was imposed on it and the most experienced healthcare workers spent their time in legal battles. Lastly, people make decisions on how they would want to live. It is also not wrong for someone to make a decision on how they would like to die.
Summarily, the case provided provides a difficult ethical dilemma. Most hospitals are always sued for negligence especially if a patient’s condition can be treated but do not do anything about it. The elderly man’s case is one of such cases. There is a possibility that the elderly man would have survived if they carried out resuscitation. The consequences for going against the elderly man’s wish is that the hospital would be fined as well as spend a lot of time in legal battles. The lives of patients in the hospital would be at risk. Therefore, according to a utilitarian perspective, it was ethical to adhere to the message of the patient, that was expressed in the tattoo.
References
Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War . Routledge.
