Withdrawal of life support system

WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM
Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Date of Submission
Introduction
There has medical technology developments and the science of medicine has revolutionaries the modern medical care which has created the legal predicament for medical practitioners. There are contentious legal issues which are associated with the medical induction withdrawal of life sustaining treatment for incompetent patients. The discontinuation will inevitably bring about death, and therefore question arises regarding criminality of the doctor who undertakes such decisions of life termination (Mendelson, 1990). The cause of a patient’s death is critical to doctor’s legal attribution, as the death of a patient must be legally attributed to the underlying conditions and lack of negligence with respect to the patient’s treatment will have no legal liability (JAMA, 1992). The cause of a patient death that is legally attributed to the conduct of a doctor in discontinuing life support system can lead to the possibility of criminal sanctions.
The advances in medical technology in health care has eliminated envelop of death and diseases on a selected population. This innovation do not necessarily cure underlying diseases leading patients to be stalled in animation as the can not die due to the process of the disease because it is temporarily arrested. They are not also to enjoy life, and this is critical to the physician responsibility to employ life sustaining systems to patients when benefits outweigh the detriment and there is a reasonable outcome desired by the patient. The same life supporting system can be removed when there is the best judgment when it appears that the inevitable death is being delayed (Crippen, 1991). There is rationality with some patients rarely willing to continue life supporting systems due to the demonstration of their trial reaching a point of diminishing returns. Anticipation of ordinary care and removal of supported care, there would be a decrease in the painful uncertainties of death in uncontrolled circumstances.
Research purpose
The sustenance of life b y a physician and relieve of suffering is a social commitment, and therefore, job performance of one duty may conflict with the other with patients preference give priority. With respect to life support system, the principle of patients’ autonomy must be respected by the physician in the decision to forego life sustaining treatments. There is no ethical distinction between withdrawing and withholding the life-sustaining treatment as competent adult patient have in advance offered valid consent regarding withdrawing or withholding of life support systems if in any case a disease renders them to be incompetent (Luce & Alppers, 2000).
There are times when a patient receiving life sustaining support becomes incompetent and hence a surrogate decision maker has to be identified. In most cases family members are identified as surrogate decision makers, but in the absence of a family member a person providing care automatically becomes the appropriate surrogate decision maker. All medical information is provided by physicians with respect to withholding or withdrawing life supporting treatment (Luce & Lemaire, 2001). The patients advance directives is considered in making judgment about life and how it should be lived. Therefore many patients who are incompetent are not able to make decisions regarding their medical treatment and depend on life supports. The increase in life sustaining treatment has resulted in to impaired decision making capacities to forego life support. The objective of this research is to examine the ethics of withdrawing life support treatment from incompetent patients.
Methodology
Research design
The methodology employed in this research is based on collecting of articles regarding withdrawing and withholding of life supporting system. The results and finding from the different articles were analyzed to provide evidence regarding life support treatment for incompetent patients. The research design is quantitative as it embraced on previous research to deduce findings and analyze these findings to give a view on how withdrawing of life support system decisions are arrived at and the ethical implications of withdrawing the life support system.
Sampling
The sampling of this research consisted of nine article which were related to ethics and implications regarding the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment. The articles were sampled on relevance of research that regards the influence of withdrawing and withholding of life sustaining treatment to patients who are incompetent.
Data collection
Data was collected from the analysis of previous research findings from various articles. This data analysis has enhances this research to evaluate the medical care with respect to withdrawal and withholding of life supporting systems to incompetent patients.
Data analysis
The data collected from the research was analyzed to provide an understanding of how and when withdrawal of life supporting system has enhanced in relieving suffering from patients whose outcomes undergoing life sustenance treatment can not attain desired results by the patient. The data was analyzed with respect to conditions that lead to termination of life and consent of patient regarding this practice.
Limitation of the Study
The study was limited to studies which had been carried earlier and thus, there is no new study carried out to bring to light the significance of withdrawing life supporting systems. The findings of there earlier researches were used to deduce a conclusion that correlated to the heath care of incompetent patients. This study entirely depended on the data which was collected by previous researches without conducting a research to hold for its finding.
Policy implications
The implication of this research is to explain why managing of death has become a common practice in intensive care units. Although the finding are not due to difference in the overall mortality, there is a believe that the manner in which deaths at the life supporting system has a reflection on the dynamic of the public and physicians attitudes with respect to propriety of treatment limitation that can not have benefits to patients.
Dissemination Strategy
The competence of the capacity to make decisions in this context is defined as the determination of a patient’s ability to give directives when on a sound mind. This is the capacity by which the task of deciding to forego the life sustaining treatment. The patients’ capacity is not only legally provided, but is based on a patient’s ability to make decisions rather than on decision content. An evaluation of life sustaining treatment can be prompted by refusal of patients, and is the basis which is deemed incompetent (Curtis & Rubenfeld, 2000). The decision making capacity judgment should not be based on patient’s age and diagnosis, as there are factors that must be considered in evaluating decision making capacity for patient’s capacity to understand, reason and communicate. Patients who do not have the capacity to make decisions though have limited ability to comprehend and reason has to participate in decision making without influencing the decision. There is a need to inform them of their state and the possible decision to be made. Patients who have the ability to express preference should have treatment preference elicited from them to accommodate these preferences except when there would be conflict with patient’s previous preference, values that would be detrimental to the well being of the patient.
Advance directives enable patients to exercise their right to direct medical treatment in the event they become incompetent. The directive constitutes the will to live and the type of treatment to be administered if an individual wishes to forego under specified conditions (Sahni, 2000). Moreover, there are medical care attorney which designate a proxy to treatment decisions. This proxy designation has the obligation to respect the right of self determination by a competent patient, as it reflects the value of patients preferences with respect to life sustain treatment. When patients do not have an advance directive that specifies the kind of treatment to be received or foregone under various circumstances facing the patient, it is thus, imperative for another person to make decisions pertaining to the patient’s life supporting treatment. The decision of treatment by the surrogate regarding the preference of the patient have a guiding principle that conform to the patient’s prior preference and values to determine what the patient would have decided.
Findings
The therapeutic decisions that allow ...