Cases in Medical Ethics: Student-Led Discussions

I was a Hackworth Fellow for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. I was also a pre-medical student, and am currently attending the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. During my senior year at Santa Clara, I led discussions on medical ethics with students interested in medicine. The purpose of these discussions was two-fold. First, they were created to help bring current ethical issues onto our campus. Second, they were intended to help students who were interested in a career in the health sciences determine whether or not medicine is their correct calling. Most of the discussions followed a simple format. One to two cases were formulated for the students to read. Then I presented the students with various questions related to some of the ethical issues contained in the situations described. The following cases are the ones that I presented to the groups. Each case also has a short history and summary of the ethical issues being reviewed. The questions I asked of the students are included as well. These cases and questions are public domain, and can be re-used or modified for educational purposes. I hope that you find them useful, and that they spawn the same thoughtful enjoyment in you as they did in me.

Note: The cases were not based on specific events. However, it is possible that they share similarities with actual events. These similarities were not intended.

Autonomy

Autonomy essentially means "self rule," and it is a patient's most basic right. As such, it is a health care worker's responsibility to respect the autonomy of her patients. However, at times this can be difficult because it can conflict with the paternalistic attitude of many health care professionals. The following two cases address patient autonomy. The first involves the rights of an individual to decide her own fate, even against her physicians' judgments. The second case involves the rights of a parent to care for her child in the manner that she sees fit.

Case 1:

A woman enters the emergency room with stomach pain. She undergoes a CT scan and is diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, a weakening in the wall of the aorta which causes it to stretch and bulge (this is very similar to what led to John Ritter's death). The physicians inform her that the only way to fix the problem is surgically, and that the chances of survival are about 50/50. They also inform her that time is of the essence, and that should the aneurysm burst, she would be dead in a few short minutes. The woman is an erotic dancer; she worries that the surgery will leave a scar that will negatively affect her work; therefore, she refuses any surgical treatment. Even after much pressuring from the physicians, she adamantly refuses surgery. Feeling that the woman is not in her correct state of mind and knowing that time is of the essence, the surgeons decide to perform the procedure without consent. They anesthetize her and surgically repair the aneurysm. She survives, and sues the hospital for millions of dollars.

Questions for Case 1:

• Do you believe that the physician's actions can be justified in any way?

• Is there anything else that they could have done?

• Is it ever right to take away someone's autonomy? (Would a court order make the physicians' decisions ethical?)

• What would you do if you were one of the health care workers?

Case 2:

You are a general practitioner and a mother comes into your office with her child who is complaining of flu-like symptoms. Upon entering the room, you ask the boy to remove his shirt and you notice a pattern of very distinct bruises on the boy's torso. You ask the mother where the bruises came from, and she tells you that they are from a procedure she performed on him known as "cao gio," which is also known as "coining." The procedure involves rubbing warm oils or gels on a person's skin with a coin or other flat metal object. The mother explains that cao gio is used to raise out bad blood, and improve circulation and healing. When you touch the boy's back with your stethoscope, he winces in pain from the bruises. You debate whether or not you should call Child Protective Services and report the mother.

Questions for Case 2:

• Should we completely discount this treatment as useless, or could there be something gained from it?

• When should a physician step in to stop a cultural practice? (If someone answers "when it harms the child" remind that person that there is some pain in many of our medical procedures, for example, having one's tonsils removed)

• Should the physician be concerned about alienating the mother and other people of her ethnicity from modern medicine?

• Do you think that the physician should report the mother?

Autonomy Part 2

Maintenance of patient autonomy is one of the major ethical focuses of physicians. Therefore, a second discussion was also held that focused primarily on patient autonomy. This discussion also took a superficial look at euthanasia. For this discussion, a 58 minute video, Dax's Case (produced by Unicorn Media, for Concern for Dying ; produced by Donald Pasquella, Keith Burton ; directed by Donald Pasquella New York : Filmmakers Library, c1984) was used. The video tells the story of Dax Cowart, a man who was severely burned by an accidental propane explosion. The burns disabled Dax, and the physicians forced treatment on him. Though he survived the treatment, he still argues that he should have been allowed to refuse it so that he could die. The video is very useful; however, the videos of Dax's burn treatments are very graphic and the video should be reviewed before it is shown to a group of students.

Questions:

• In the video, one of the physicians says that burn patients are incompetent to make decisions when they first enter the hospital because they are in such a great deal of pain. However, patients such as Dax can be in a great deal of pain for a very long time. In such cases, what should be done to determine competence, and when should this be done?

• Do you think the fact that Dax could not see a future for himself should have been taken into account when determining his competency? Could this have clouded his judgment? (He thought that he would end up on the street corner selling pencils)

• Do you think that the fact that Dax was going to recover, and had the possibility of living a happy life, made not treating Dax like suicide… or murder? What if he did not have this possibility?

• After his recovery, Dax attempted suicide. Should the physicians have let him die? Is it ever correct for a doctor to allow a patient to kill himself?

• Do you ever think that it is correct for a physician to break a competent patient's autonomy? If so, is this one of those cases?

• Do you think that in this case, that the ends justified the means?

Euthanasia

The word "euthanasia" draws its roots from Greek meaning "good death." As it is used in this discussion, it means "the act of ending the life of a person suffering from either a terminal illness, or an incurable disease." The AMA is against physicians assisting in euthanasia. There is currently only one state in the US that allows for euthanasia, and that is Oregon, where in 1997, the "Death With Dignity Act" went into effect. Euthanasia advocates stress that it should be allowed as an extension of a person's autonomy. Those who are against euthanasia often say that it can lead to the devaluation of human life, and to a slippery slope in which the old and disabled will be killed on the whims of healthy people. We examined one case and the Oregon law to view the ethics of euthanasia.

Case One:
A woman was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (the same
disease that Stephen Hawking has) 5 years ago. This is a condition that destroys motor nerves, making control of movement impossible, while the mind is virtually unaffected. People with motor neurone disease normally die within 4 years of diagnosis from suffocation due to the inability of the inspiratory muscles to contract. The woman's condition has steadily declined. She is not expected to live through the month, and is worried about the pain that she will face in her final hours. She asks her doctor to give her diamorphine for pain if she begins to suffocate or choke. This will lessen her pain, but it will also hasten her death. About a week later, she falls very ill, and is having trouble breathing.

Questions for Case 1:

• Does she have a right to make this choice, especially in view of the fact that she will be dead in a short while (say six hours)? Is this choice an extension of her autonomy?

• Is the short amount of time she has to live ethically relevant? Is there an ethical difference between her dying in 6 hours and dying in a week? What about a year, and how do you draw this distinction?

• Is the right for a patient's self-determination powerful enough to create obligations on the part of others to aid her so that she can exercise her rights? She clearly cannot kill herself. She can't move, but should someone be FORCED to help her, or to find someone to help her?

• Should the money used to care for this woman be taken into account when she is being helped? Do you think that legalizing euthanasia could create conflicts of interest for the patient/ or the doctor? Will people feel that they need to end their lives earlier to save money?

• Ask each student: If you were the physician, what would you do? Note: if you would pass her off to another doctor knowing he or she would do it, does this free you from you ethical obligations?

Oregon's Death With Dignity Act:

We discussed the following questions pertaining to the Death With Diginity Act.

Death With Dignity Questions:

• Look at the requirements for the request. Do you see any problems with them? (The woman from case 1 would not qualify.)

• Why would they put in these guidelines? Should they be there, if they keep a competent person like the woman above from living her autonomy? (Is it to protect the doctors so they will not have to GIVE the medication?)

• Is there a moral difference between prescribing the drug and actually giving it to the patient? If not, why put in the rules?

• Why do you think they wouldn't let a person who is terminally ill and in pain with possibly more than 6 months receive assistance in dying? Say someone is diagnosed with HIV?

• Does the justification of euthanasia necessarily justify the assisted suicide of a healthy person?

• Do you think a weakness of this law is the probability of patients being influenced by family members? (For example, for financial or other reasons?) Note: Approximately 60% of Oregonians in 2000 said (before they died) that they used the prescription at least in some part due to fear of being a burden on their family.

• The AMA says that euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer. What do you think about this statement? Why should a physician have to be the one who does this?

Assisted Reproduction:

This is a difficult subject because it involves reproductive issues. In our culture, reproductive liberty, the freedom to decide when and where to conceive a child is highly protected, and this can make these cases much more difficult.

Case 1:
There are two types of surrogacy. One type involves a surrogate mother who uses her own egg and carries the baby for someone else. The other type is a "gestational surrogacy" in which the mother has no genetic tie to the child she carries. In the case presented, a gestational surrogate is used.

A woman, after a bout with uterine cancer had a hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus). Before, its removal, however, she had several eggs removed for possible fertilization in the future. Now married, the woman wishes to have a child with her husband. Obviously she cannot bear the child herself, so the couple utilizes a company to find a surrogate mother for them. The husband's sperm is used to fertilize one of the wife's eggs, and is implanted in the surrogate mother. The couple pays all of the woman's pregnancy-related expenses and an extra $18,000 as compensation for her surrogacy. After all expenses are taken into account the couple pays the woman approximately $31,000 and the agency approximately $5,000. Though the surrogate passed stringent mental testing to ensure she was competent to carry another couple's child, after carrying the pregnancy to term, the surrogate says that she has become too attached to "her" child to give it up to the couple. A legal battle ensues.

Questions for Case 1:

• In the United States it is illegal to pay a person for non-replenishable organs. The fear is that money will influence the poor to harm their bodies for the benefit of the rich. Do you see a parallel between this case and this law? Can allowing surrogate mothers to be paid for their troubles allow poorer women to be oppressed?

• Does paying the surrogate harm her and/or the child's dignity?

• Is it selfish/conceited for this couple to want children of their own genetic make-up? If yes, does this change if you can "easily" have a child? (Note: Over 100,000 children in the U.S. are waiting to be adopted. However, most are older, have several siblings, or have special needs.)

• On their website, the AMA says "that surrogacy contracts [when the surrogate uses her own egg], while permissible, should grant the birth mother the right to void the contract within a reasonable period of time after the birth of the child. If the contract is voided, custody of the child should be determined according to the child's best interests." Do you see any problems with this? (What's a reasonable time? In a way can you steal the surrogate's child?)

• One of the main arguments against the use of surrogate mothers is that carrying and giving birth to a child is such an emotional event that it is impossible to determine if the surrogate will be able to give up the child. Though adults enter into the contract, the child could ultimately suffer if a long custody battle ensues (as it could in states where surrogacy contracts hold no legal value, such as Virginia). With the possibility of such battles, do you think it is acceptable for parents to use a surrogate mother?

• Do you think that if the surrogate is awarded the baby, this could cause emotional harm to the child?

• Who do you think should receive the child, and why?

Case 2:

A married couple wishes to have a child; however, the 32 year old mother knows that she is a carrier for Huntington's disease (HD). HD is a genetic disorder that begins showing signs at anywhere from 35-45 years of age. Its symptoms begin with slow loss of muscle control and end in loss of speech, large muscle spasms, disorientation and emotional outbursts. After 15-20 years of symptoms HD ends in death. HD is a dominant disorder which means that her child will have a 50% chance of contracting the disorder. Feeling that risking their baby's health would be irresponsible, the couple decides to use in vitro fertilization to fertilize several of the wife's eggs. Several eggs are harvested, and using special technology, only eggs that do not have the defective gene are kept to be fertilized. The physician then fertilizes a single egg, and transfers the embryo to the mother. Approximately 9 months later, the couple gives birth to a boy who does not carry the gene for the disorder.

• Is this a case of eugenics? "Eugenics" is defined as "the hereditary improvement of the human race controlled by selective breeding" (dictionary.com)

• Would it be acceptable for the parents to select for sex as well, or should they only select an embryo that does not have HD? How would this be different?

• Is it ethical for this couple to have a baby when the mother could begin showings signs of HD when the baby is just a few years old?

• With this technology possible, would it be ethical for this couple to have a child without genetically ensuring it would not have the disease? What if we did not have this technology, would it be ethical for a known carrier to have a child? (If not, how far should this carry? a carrier for cystic fibrosis ( which is recessive)? )

• Weighing everything we have discussed, do you believe the couple acted ethically?

Response To Bio-Terrorism

The possibility of terrorists using biological weapons on the citizens of the United States has been a major topic in the press for the last several years. Smallpox has been speculated to be the perfect biological terror agent because of the potency of the virus, and because of the lack of herd immunity present in the US population. The following case presents a possible way in which the virus could be released in the population and a possible response. The questions following the case involve the ethics surrounding the government's response.

Smallpox Facts:

• Smallpox initially has flu-like symptoms, which are recognizable 7-19 days after exposure. After 2-4 days of flu-like symptoms, the fever begins to decrease, and pox will form.

• An infected person is contagious one day before the characteristic pox appear.

• Approximately 30-50% of unvaccinated people exposed to smallpox will contract the disease.

• The mortality rate for smallpox was approximately 20-40%.

• The vaccine that was used was approximately 90% effective.

• It is possible that if terrorists were to use the smallpox virus, that they would genetically modify it. If this were the case, then the vaccine may not prevent all of the disease symptoms for those vaccinated.

Facts gathered from: http://www.vbs.admin.ch/ls/e/current/fact_sheet/pocken/

Case:

Date: June 22, 2005. A 27-year-old man is brought into a New York City emergency room with a 101-degree fever, and what he believes is chickenpox (Varicella). After a brief examination, the 35-year-old physician is puzzled because the pox do not appear to be typical of the varicella-zoster virus. Worried, he calls in another physician for her opinion. She takes one look at the patient, determines he has small pox, and immediately orders him to be quarantined. She notifies the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and asks them what should be done.
While doing background on the patient, he tells the physicians that he is a flight attendant and that he has flown to Orlando, FL, Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, and Seattle, WA in the past few weeks while working. Though he is given excellent treatment, and had been in perfect health a few days earlier, the patient dies 7 hours after admittance to the hospital.

The CDC decides that mandatory small pox vaccines will be administered to all workers in the NYC hospital, and to all patients who were in the ER. His co-workers are all given mandatory vaccines as well, as are all people living in his apartment complex. They also ship stored quantities of the vaccine to all of the cities where the man had flown to for work. The vaccines are offered to citizens of these cities. Finally, all people, along with their families who had been on the man's flights in the weeks preceding the appearance of the disease are forced to receive the vaccine.

Questions:
Note: The flight attendant was most likely given small pox by a bio terrorist who flew on his plane sometime during the past week/week and a half. The terrorist would have been contagious but would not have shown symptoms. Virtually every person the man came into contact with would have gotten the virus.

• Is it ethical for the CDC to force people to get the vaccine?

• An LA woman on the flight is religiously opposed to vaccines. Under California law she can normally refuse vaccines on religious or personal grounds. However, the government says she must receive the vaccine or face mandatory quarantine. What do you think of this?

• Do you think that for more common diseases, for example measles, that it is ethical for the state to allow people to refuse vaccines (even for religious grounds)? What if their refusal can harm others who cannot have the vaccine, such as people who are immunocompromised like AIDS patients?

• Is it ethical for someone to refuse the vaccine?

• You had driven down to Los Angeles 5 days ago to visit a friend for the weekend. While in town, you visited many tourist attractions. You are worried and you try to get the vaccine, but are denied it because of limited resources. What do you think of this?

• Citizens begin calling for the mandatory quarantining of people directly exposed to the victim, i.e those living in his apartment complex, those working in the ER, those who flew on the plane in the prior week. What do you think of this?

• The smallpox vaccine, like many other vaccines (example: oral polio vaccine) can actually transmit the virus to others. In light of this, is it ethical for people to get the vaccine? (Note: they are vaccinating those who may not want to be vaccinated)

• Today, should health care workers be allowed/forced to get the smallpox vaccine? What about non-health care worker citizens?