The issue of death always has been a controversial aspect of life. The circumstances where it is reasonable to accept death or keep fighting for one’s life have never had a clear distinction. For this reason, these borders fully depend on the affected party and at times their physicians. I this case, Hector’s decision to stop his treatment is acceptable. This is because; he viewed himself as a burden to his family and his caretakers.
In addition, his treatment was degrading since he relied on a feeding tube for his continued existence. If there was any hope of his situation getting better, Hector may have persevered with the situation. However, no other methods of treatment that will make him stop using the feeding tube. For him to survive, he has to keep using the feeding tube each day even if he did not agree with it. Hector’s decision to stop the treatment by having the feeding tube removed is a good reason that should be accepted by his family and physician, as well.
The writer’s opinion if they were Hectors Physician is considerably valid. The writer states that he will provide all the necessary information to Hector. This information will ensure that the patient makes an informed decision. If he still insists on the removal of the feeding tube, the writer would refer him to another doctor who accepted the opinion. This transfer would take place since the doctor’s point of view that does not believe in or accept the decision for the patient.
This reason should be respected since the doctors cannot go past their beliefs in order to pleas the patient. If his or her opinions differ, it is reasonable that the doctor should refer Hector to another doctor who agrees with his decision. In this case, a conflict of interest will not arise since the patient in question will be put under the care of another physician who agrees with the patient, Hector (Merino, 2011).
The decisions made by the patients in such controversial situations should be respected. However, the patient should have exhausted all other options before conceding to a severe and contentious decision. Mr. Santos in this case, has made a decision to cease his feeding through the feeding tube since it is disgracing for him. He has made this decision knowing fully well that if the tube is removed, he will die. This is because he will not be able to obtain any nutrients since he does not have a way to feed. Mr. Santos considers this method of feeding belittling since is has affected his dignity. In order to avoid this shame and the burden he considers to be placing on the family, he has opted to halt the feeding through the tube for him to die a dignified death in his opinion. He is aware of the implications that will follow this decision and has accepted them completely.
The writer states that the health care providers should not judge such patients if they make such decisions since they do not know what they are going through. Instead, they should do their best to help them by providing them with other options other than certain death. The information that may be provided includes the advantages and disadvantages of his decision as well as other options of treatment. After careful considerations, the patient will then be able to make a suitable decision that pertains to the matter. In this case, Mr. Santos has no other treatment alternatives and in order to live, he has to keep using the feeding tube. The advice of the physician does not sway Mr. Santos’ decision and for this reason, the doctor may offer suitable options like hospice services to the family of the patient. This will enable the patient and his family to adopt with the transition of life and death more effectively. The opinions given by the writer are quite applicable especially in the case of Mr. Santos since they have respected his personal wishes of ceasing the treatments that was given to him.
Merino, N. (2011). Medical ethics. Detroit: Green haven Press.