Technological changes such as gene mapping of humans, genetic cloning, stem cell
research, and life support technology are raising serious ethical and moral issues in
healthcare. I am going to discuss regarding the ethical and moral dilemma of life support
technologies during end-of-life care. Life-sustaining treatment is a treatment intended to
prolong life without curing or reversing an underlying medical condition such as
mechanical ventilation, artificial nutrition or hydration, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy,
and antibiotics. This raises the debate over quality vs. quantity of life. Ethical questions
include: Are we helping people live longer at the expense of their comfort and dignity? If
we don’t use artificial means to support life, are we denying them the chance to live longer
or recover fully? What if a miracle happens while they are on life support and they are
cured? (Morrow, 2020).
Withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment tends to be very
challenging for health care providers, patients, and their family members. They morally
felt the best approach is to try a new intervention, continue all treatments, and attempt an
experimental course of action when a patient’s life seems to be nearing its end. The
widespread belief that medicine can achieve miracles withholds a life-sustaining treatment
and even more difficult to withdraw one that has already started. The initiation or
continuation of medical interventions, including life-sustaining medical treatments, must
be ethically justified. Such interventions are ethically justified only if the treatment must
be medically indicated, and there must be consent for the indicated treatment. A risky
intervention with less chance of success may be beneficial to one patient but futile for
another. A particular intervention that is not indicated, should not be offered to the patient.
An intervention that is initiated in the belief that it was going to benefit the patient but has
since been found to do more harm than good should be withdrawn (Welie & Ten Have,
2014).
In a patient refuse continued ventilation, members of the medical team are ethically
required to abide by his refusal of further ventilation. The care team has no choice but to
discontinue the ventilation and then seek to provide the best palliative support possible.
The care team needs the patient’s consent to treat or continue treatment, and they no
longer have it. Stepping back, then, does not amount to assisting in the patient’s suicide,
but as a token of respect for the patient’s autonomy (Welie & Ten Have, 2014).
References
Morrow, A. (2020, March 8). How to decide whether to withhold or withdraw life
support. Verywell Health. https://www.verywellhealth.com/withhold-or-withdraw-
life-sustaining-measures-1132314
Welie, J. V., & Ten Have, H. A. (2014). The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment:
Theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidisciplinary
Respiratory Medicine, 9. https://doi.org/10.4081/mrm.2014.421
