Life depends on the effectiveness and functionality of body organs. If vital roles performed by the organs, such as facilitating breathing, fails, death is often imminent. In this case, life support is crucial if the life of the patient is to be saved. It involves procedures used to replace the failing organs artificially. The main aim is to buy time and allow the other life-saving procedures can be performed on the patients. This process is however, influenced by some moral and ethical concerns. This is often the case when a patient decides to prevent the use of life support techniques. Doctors follow the will of the patients to respect the autonomy principle, which gives patients the power to control what happens to their bodies. If a patient refuses certain life-saving procedures to be performed to them, then this is passive euthanasia, which is legal in 50 states. In this case, the decision is entirely on the patient or family members to decide what is best for them.
In the case study, Mr. Martinez and his wife decided that CPR should not be performed even if his condition deteriorated. By refusing CPR, they were against any medical of life-support intervention that could help prolong Mr. Martinez's life from cardiac arrest. This is passive euthanasia since the patient refused any further medical intervention. In the United States, patients have the right to refuse treatment; autonomy provides them with control over their health (Gedge, Giacomini, & Cook, 2007) . Mr. Martinez was in a bad condition with respiration problems. His condition was improving until the oxygen was turned up, which resulted in respiratory failure. Medical interventions, such as CPR, could be applied and could help prolong the life of Mr. Martinez until surgery was done to improve his condition.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The family of Mr. Martinez, which comprised of him and his wife, stated that they wanted nothing to do with CPR. This is a life support technique that would aid him in breathing and prevent imminent death. Their decision corresponds with passive euthanasia, where patients refuse medical interventions to improve their life. In the United States, a rational individual is allowed to make free decisions regarding passive euthanasia, and so is the family. The decision to not using CPR was predetermined before Mr. Martinez's hospital.
Limiting life support is associated with moral, ethical issues like passive euthanasia. Some moral issues associated with life support depends on the moral interest of the parties involved. Some of them relate to the cost and the interest of the patient (Stewart, 2007) . In the case of Mr. Martinez, there were no moral conflicts involved since the decision was made willingly by Mr. Martinez and his wife. This eliminates any conflict of interest that could have been involved in the case. According to them, failure to accept CPR was the best decision for them. This case involved two ethical principles in medicine. The first one is beneficence, where doctors are expected to do all they can to safeguard the interests of the patient (Kinsinger, 2009) . All actions they take should promote the wellbeing of the patient . In this case, the doctors should have used the CPR to save Mr. Martinez, although the principle of autonomy overrode it. The autonomy principle gives the patient control over their body (Entwistle et al., 2010); they can decide to forgo certain medical interventions if it serves their interests (Welie & Have, 2014) . Due to the principle of autonomy, Mr. Martinez had full control over his body to decide the treatment does not want. Also, considering he and his wife made the decision, there are no reasons to ignore their interests. Therefore Mr. Martinez cannot be taken to the ICU for CPR as their decision is final. Mr. Martinez should just be kept comfortable and allowed to die in peace by respecting his wishes.
References
Entwistle, V. A., Carter, S., Cribb, A., & McCaffery, K. (2010). Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-patient Relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25 (7), 741-745. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2
Gedge, E., Giacomini, M., & Cook, D. (2007). Withholding and withdrawing life support in critical care settings: ethical issues concerning consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33 (4), 215-218. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.017038
Kinsinger, F. S. (2009). Beneficence and the professional's moral imperative. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 16 (1), 44-46. doi:10.1016/j.echu.2010.02.006
Stewart, R. S. (2007). Withholding and Withdrawing Life Support: Moral Dilemmas, Moral Distress, and Moral. Online Journal of Health Ethics , 1-25. doi:10.18785/ojhe.0402.04
Welie, J. V., & Have, H. A. (2014). The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, 9 (14). doi:10.1186/2049-6958-9-14
