This case study explores the ethical conflict between respecting patient autonomy and preserving life in end-of-life care. Through the story of Hannah, a terminally ill patient whose wishes to cease food and fluids were undermined by nursing staff, the paper analyzes key ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence), relevant ethical theories (deontology), and decision-making frameworks. It examines issues of pain management, rational decision-making capacity, cultural considerations around advance directives, and legal obligations healthcare workers have to honor competent patients' requests. The analysis demonstrates how personal and religious values can conflict with patient wishes and advocates for education, support, and advocacy to ensure patients receive palliative care and maintain autonomy at end-of-life.
More people are preparing advance directives due to fear that technology will keep them alive against their wishes when they are terminally ill (Valente, 2004). Advance directives allow competent persons to express their desires for end-of-life care. Patients with advance directives are less likely to accept aggressive life-sustaining treatment, particularly if they are terminally ill or permanently dependent on life support (Valente, 2004).
For instance, a terminally ill person may decide to hasten death by stopping food and fluids and refusing life-sustaining interventions rather than experience prolonged suffering and uncontrolled pain. When these requests are clearly stated in an advance directive, autonomy is enhanced because the person participates in decisions that influence end-of-life care. Unfortunately, when a terminally ill, competent person wants to hasten death, nurses may feel torn between respecting patient autonomy and preserving life (Valente, 2004).
The following case study exemplifies an ethical dilemma when a healthcare worker had to choose between honoring a patient's wishes by stopping food and fluids to hasten her death or continuing fluids to preserve her life. This analysis explores the ethical principles, theories, and decision-making frameworks relevant to this conflict, with the goal of understanding how healthcare professionals can better support patient autonomy while providing compassionate, evidence-based care.
This case study involves a 74-year-old Hispanic female named Hannah. She had survived several heart attacks, bypass surgery, breast cancer, and the deaths of two husbands and her daughter. She still had one daughter living nearby. Hannah suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which left her dependent on oxygen and in need of full-time home care to assist with activities of daily living, meals, medications, and transportation (Valente, 2004).
Hannah experienced a severe attack of dyspnea and was taken to the emergency department, where she subsequently suffered cardiac arrest. During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, she vomited and aspirated. She was transferred to intensive care where she recovered slowly, then moved to an extended care facility for recuperation and physical therapy to regain strength and function so she could return home. Unfortunately, Hannah's condition deteriorated rapidly. Neither the nurse nor the physician offered information to Hannah's daughter regarding her health status. Hannah began to have difficulty swallowing and was placed on thickened fluids for her dysphagia. She remained a total care patient and then contracted influenza (Valente, 2004).
As she became more incapacitated, she wanted to stop food, fluids, and oxygen (Valente, 2004). Hannah was aware this would hasten her death, but she did not want to experience a long, distressing death. She had been a Unitarian for decades—a Christian denomination giving each congregation complete control over its spiritual affairs—and had no personal or moral objections to voluntarily hastening her death. Hannah had expressed in her long-standing advance directives a wish for no food, fluids, or life-prolonging interventions, but adequate pain management if she were terminally ill (Valente, 2004).
Despite promising to honor Hannah's wishes as stated by her, her daughter, and her documented advance directives, the nurse and staff continued to administer oral medications—including an appetite-enhancing drug—with fluids. Healthcare workers persisted in offering her food and pressured her to drink fluids. They even suggested the need for a feeding tube placement despite the fact that she had signs hanging by her bed reading "NO Food; NO Fluids" (Valente, 2004).
The staff wanted to refer her for psychiatric hospitalization, deciding that her refusal of food and fluids constituted an attempt to commit suicide. She did not receive psychiatric evaluation until after she was administered morphine and other drugs for intense pain, which left her confused. Hannah was then involuntarily transferred to a psychiatric facility. The psychiatrist determined she was of sound mind and, because she was terminally ill, concluded that her requests to hasten her death by stopping food and fluids were reasonable. Hannah was subsequently moved to another extended care facility (Valente, 2004).
An ethical dilemma is described as a moral problem involving a choice between two or more mutually exclusive, morally correct courses of action (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2002). The ethical dilemma in this case study is the choice between continuing food and fluids to preserve Hannah's life or hastening her death by stopping them. The nurse chose to continue fluids and medications to preserve Hannah's life by taking steps to undermine the competent, terminally ill patient's advance directives and requests, despite stating she supported the patient's plan (Valente, 2004).
The nurse was more concerned with preserving Hannah's life than following the patient's wishes. She made it very difficult for Hannah to stop food and fluids by giving her oral medications that required fluids to administer. This conflict between life-preservation and respect for autonomy lies at the heart of modern bioethics in nursing practice.
Many articles discuss the issues of end-of-life care and what patients perceive as a "good" or "bad" death. Valente (2004) discussed ethical issues relating to patients' end-of-life decisions and care, including pain and symptom management, rational decisions, and requests for hastened death through stopping food and fluids.
On average, patients do not receive sufficient pain management and suffer tremendously during their last twenty-four hours of life (Valente, 2004). This is especially true for cancer patients or cancer survivors during their final days. Quality of life is significantly impaired by fear of inadequate symptom management. In Hannah's case, she constantly complained that her pain was poorly managed, adding to her distress and reinforcing her desire for a hastened death.
According to Valente (2004), approximately 2 to 5 percent of terminally ill people have hastened their death, typically because of poor quality of life, failed requests for treatment withdrawal, and distressing treatments. In many circumstances, people have wanted to hasten death because nausea, pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms were unbearable. Unfortunately, determining decisional capacity and clear mental status is challenging when the patient is facing death. In Hannah's case, psychiatric evaluation revealed she was of sound mind and did not suffer from depression (Valente, 2004). Therefore, her wishes to hasten death were reasonable and should have been honored.
Among the most controversial ethical issues facing healthcare today is how professionals can respond therapeutically to patients' requests for hastened death (Valente, 2004). When a terminally ill patient wants to hasten death, it can challenge nurses to reexamine their attitudes about life-saving technology, autonomy, and values about preserving life. Unfortunately, healthcare workers can become benevolent and believe that they know what is best despite the patient's independent decisions (Valente, 2004).
In this case study, the nurse felt she was doing what was best for Hannah by preserving life and not honoring her wishes for a hastened death. This paternalistic approach—while often well-intentioned—undermined Hannah's ability to exercise self-determination.
Patients have varied opinions and definitions of what is considered a "good" or "bad" death. These concepts are shaped by people's experiences, spiritual beliefs, culture, and by changes in social norms, technology, and options for dying (Field & Cassel, 1997). Care for those approaching death is an integral and important part of healthcare and should involve both patients and those close to them.
According to Field and Cassel (1997), a good death is defined as one that is free from avoidable distress and suffering for patients, families, and caregivers; in general accord with patients' and families' wishes; and reasonably consistent with clinical, cultural, and ethical standards. A bad death is characterized by needless suffering, disregard for patient or family wishes or values, and a sense among participants or observers that norms of decency have been offended. In Hannah's case, her wishes were not being met, which caused needless suffering for her and her daughter—a clear example of a "bad" death.
Several ethical principles are relevant to Hannah's case, including autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, loyalty, veracity, and integrity. The first and foremost is Hannah's autonomy—the right of self-determination—which was evident in her decision to hasten death by wanting to stop food, fluids, and life-sustaining interventions (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2002).
The nurse demonstrated beneficence (acting in ways that benefit patients) and nonmaleficence (doing no harm) by attempting to preserve life. However, the ethical principles of loyalty to the patient and veracity (truthfulness) were not honored when the nurse said she supported Hannah's decision to stop food and fluids but then continued to give her oral medications with water, an appetite-enhancing drug, and suggested a feeding tube. The nurse's integrity was supported in her efforts to try to preserve Hannah's life, but at the expense of other fundamental ethical obligations (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2002).
In this case study, the nurse used the deontological ethical theory to guide her decision-making process. According to Burkhardt and Nathaniel (2002), deontology theories of ethics are based on the rationalist view that the rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon the nature of the act, rather than its consequences. It is usually rooted in a religious system of belief.
The nurse's religious values and beliefs—that stopping food and fluids is immoral and an attempt at suicide—kept her from following through with Hannah's wishes. She did not take into consideration Hannah's past medical history, her fears of having a long, prolonged death, or that she was a Unitarian with no moral objections to hastening her death. When health professionals override the patient's wishes because of their own religious or personal values, it can have a profound and lasting effect on both the patient and the healthcare worker (Valente, 2004).
Ethical decision-making models provide an organized approach to making ethical decisions in clinical practice. Catalano's Model, which consists of four steps, was used to analyze Hannah's case: collect, analyze, and interpret the data; state the dilemma; consider the choices of action; and make the decision (Valente, 2004).
Hannah was a 74-year-old Hispanic female with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dependent on oxygen and receiving full-time home care to help with activities of daily living, meals, medications, and transportation. She had outlived two husbands and one daughter. Her only remaining family was another daughter living nearby. She suffered a severe attack of dyspnea, went into cardiac arrest, and vomited and aspirated during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. After a long recovery, she was transferred to an extended care facility and became a total care patient. Hannah wished to hasten her death with no food, fluids, or life-sustaining interventions. Her daughter was aware of and agreed with her wishes.
The ethical dilemma centered on Hannah's desire to stop food and fluids to hasten her death versus the nurse's failure to honor these wishes by giving her oral medications with water. The nurse was also administering an appetite-enhancing drug and suggesting placement of a feeding tube. Not only were Hannah and her daughter verbally adamant about her wishes, but they had also posted signs in her room stating "NO Food; NO Fluids." Hannah's desires for end-of-life care were clearly documented in her advance directives.
One option was to honor Hannah's wishes by stopping food and fluids to hasten and not prolong her death. To respect her wishes, the healthcare team could have changed her medications from oral to intravenous to eliminate the fluids necessary to take oral medication. The appetite-enhancing drug could be discontinued. Effective pain relief and comfort should have been the priority during this time. All of these interventions would support Hannah's desires to hasten her death. Alternatively, if the nurse believed that Hannah's wishes to stop food and fluids constituted an attempt at suicide, she could have asked not to be responsible for her care and been assigned to another patient.
Unfortunately, the nurse in the case study chose to give oral medications with water, including the appetite-enhancing drug. She believed that preserving life was more important than honoring Hannah's wishes and being her advocate. Because of Hannah's past and current medical condition, the ethical choice would have been to honor her wishes to eliminate food and fluids to hasten her death and hopefully reduce her chances of experiencing a long and painful death. The healthcare team should also have ensured that Hannah received adequate pain relief and suffered as little as possible.
"Obligations and advance directives across cultures"
Advance directives are essential in expressing a patient's wishes concerning end-of-life care. However, nurses may experience a conflict when the competent patient wishes to hasten death because the agency or nurse's values suggest that life should be preserved at all costs, yet the nurse also wants to respect the patient's autonomy (Valente, 2004). If a patient's wishes are ignored, then the advance directives become irrelevant.
Education, support, and advocacy are critical in healthcare today in order for patients to receive adequate palliative care and for patient autonomy to be honored. Healthcare systems must create a culture where clinicians understand their legal and ethical obligations to respect competent patients' end-of-life decisions, and where personal values do not override patient rights. By doing so, healthcare workers can help ensure that patients like Hannah experience dignified, compassionate deaths aligned with their wishes and values.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.