Four Ethical Principles in End-of-Life Care
This paper examines a real clinical case of a 75-year-old patient in cardiorespiratory arrest who remains comatose after seven days of intensive ICU treatment. With the medical team and the patient's wife favoring withdrawal of aggressive care, but the adult son (a physician) demanding continued full treatment, the paper applies the four foundational ethical principles—beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice—to analyze the moral dimensions of the dilemma. The analysis demonstrates how each principle both supports and complicates the decision, ultimately concluding that respect for autonomy and informed family consensus should guide the resolution.
- Case Presentation and Clinical Background: 75-year-old in ICU with severe prognosis; family conflict over treatment continuation
- Beneficence and the Limits of Treatment: Applying the principle of doing good; when aggressive care becomes burdensome
- Nonmaleficence and the Double Effect: Avoiding harm while accepting unintended side effects of necessary treatment
- Respect for Autonomy and Surrogate Decision-Making: Patient's right to choose; hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers in comatose patients
- Justice and Resource Allocation: Fair distribution of limited hospital resources and patient entitlements
- Resolving the Dilemma: Autonomy principle overrides beneficence; informed family consensus guides decision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete, detailed clinical case to ground abstract ethical theory, making principles immediately relevant and understandable.
- Applies all four foundational ethical principles systematically to a single dilemma, demonstrating how each illuminates but also conflicts with the others.
- Acknowledges genuine tensions—showing that beneficence and nonmaleficence can contradict each other, and that autonomy and justice each support different decisions—rather than forcing a false resolution.
- Integrates real medical knowledge (vasopressor side effects, mechanical ventilation complications, renal failure) into ethical analysis, avoiding purely abstract discussion.
- Concludes with a reasoned position that respects but transcends individual principles, prioritizing autonomy while recognizing the limits of ethics alone.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper exemplifies applied ethics through parallel principle-based analysis. Rather than arguing for one framework, it systematically explores how beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice each apply to the same case. This technique reveals the real structure of ethical conflict: stakeholders (the son, the wife, the medical team) genuinely prioritize different principles, and no single principle resolves the dilemma. The author demonstrates intellectual maturity by concluding that autonomy should "override" beneficence—not because beneficence is wrong, but because respecting persons requires honoring their (or their surrogates') informed choices.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a detailed case presentation that establishes clinical facts and the core conflict (son vs. wife, physician vs. spouse). It then marches through four ethical principles in sequence, devoting one major section to each. Within each principle section, the author first defines and contextualizes the principle, then applies it to Mr. B's case, often showing how the principle both supports and complicates aggressive treatment. The final section shifts from analysis to recommendation, declaring autonomy as the overriding principle and calling for informed family consensus. This structure mirrors the ethical decision-making process: understand the facts, examine all relevant principles, weigh their competing claims, and reach a defensible conclusion.
Case Presentation and Clinical Background
Mr. B is a 75-year-old man who suffered cardiorespiratory arrest and was immediately admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). On admission, he presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3, indicating severe neurological compromise. By the seventh day of hospitalization, his neurologic status had not improved. He remained intubated on assisted control ventilation and was dependent on multiple vasopressor medications, including Levophed and Dobutamine intravenously, as well as renal-dose Dopamine. Despite maximum medical support, he remained hemodynamically unstable, with systolic blood pressure maintained at only 90 mm Hg. His urine output progressively decreased, and he was diagnosed with acute renal failure, for which he was started on slow continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Hemodialysis was not pursued due to his continued hemodynamic instability. Nutritional support was provided via Dobhoff tube insertion, and bowel function remained intact.
The clinical team and family faced a profound ethical conflict. Mr. B's son, Dr. B, is a physician employed at the same institution and demanded continuation of full aggressive treatment and full code status. In stark contrast, Mr. B's wife, Dr. B's mother, wished to discontinue aggressive therapy because she no longer wanted to witness her husband's suffering. The ICU medical team, upon reassessment, agreed that continued aggressive intervention would not be beneficial. The patient was already on maximum doses of pressors yet remained hemodynamically unstable. His Glasgow Coma Scale showed no improvement over seven days. He could not be weaned from ventilator support and was completely dependent on CRRT. The medical consensus was that continuing aggressive therapy would only delay an inevitable outcome. This disagreement among the son, the wife, and the medical team created a complex ethical dilemma requiring careful application of established ethical principles.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.