3048.1.4 : Ethical Dilemmas
Danielle Scott
April 30, 2023
Revised: May 16, 2023 – All revisions done in red font for ease of review
, Danielle Scott
The Scenario Summarized
An elderly, Turkish woman is taken to the local hospital by staff at the extended care facility
where she lives where she is diagnosed with a heart attack and started on an anticoagulant drug to help
reverse the heart attack. She has three sons, one of whom (Bashir), is noted on paperwork provided by
her extended care facility as her emergency contact. Bashir is deemed her decision-maker due to their
cultural value that men are the decision makers of the family. The problem arises when Jamilah tells a
social worker that she would like to continue treatment and that she wants to live. The social worker also
observes some behavior in Jamilah’s sons that appears unsupportive of her. In order to heal properly
from this heart attack, Jamilah needs to be seen by cardiologists and potentially undergo a procedure
like cardiac catheterization or bypass surgery.
Three Ethical Dilemmas
There are legal implications associated with the following three ethical dilemmas: autonomy,
beneficence, and non-maleficence. Autonomy is defined as a person’s right to make their own decisions
(Pozgar, 2020). Legally, all adults (with clear and conscious decision-making capabilities) must have the
option to make their own healthcare and treatment choices (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Beneficence is
defined as the standard of goodness, kindness, and assisting others (Pozgar, 2020). This ideal intertwines
with autonomy in a legal sense in that when a patient and physician disagree on the best course of
action, the patient must show clear understanding of what they are declining and what the
repercussions of that refusal may entail (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Non-maleficence is defined as the
decree requiring healthcare providers to do no harm (Pozgar, 2020). Additionally, this means that the
result of a patient’s treatment should leave the patient as good as or better than they arrived in both a
physical and emotional state (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Nonmaleficence can sometimes clash with
beneficence because sometimes treatments, regardless of their possible benefit, can cause residual
harm to the patient (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). If a physician decides to go against a patient’s
autonomous decision, the physician can be charged with medical battery (Valdova, 2020). Autonomy can
sometimes overshadow beneficence because a patient has a right to refuse care regardless of how much
it could potentially benefit them (Valdova, 2020). In the case of Jamilah, she has no paperwork other
than a non-legally-binding “emergency contact” designation on her face sheet from her long-term care
facility. If the physicians decide to withhold care at the request of her son, they can face legal action
2
Danielle Scott
April 30, 2023
Revised: May 16, 2023 – All revisions done in red font for ease of review
, Danielle Scott
The Scenario Summarized
An elderly, Turkish woman is taken to the local hospital by staff at the extended care facility
where she lives where she is diagnosed with a heart attack and started on an anticoagulant drug to help
reverse the heart attack. She has three sons, one of whom (Bashir), is noted on paperwork provided by
her extended care facility as her emergency contact. Bashir is deemed her decision-maker due to their
cultural value that men are the decision makers of the family. The problem arises when Jamilah tells a
social worker that she would like to continue treatment and that she wants to live. The social worker also
observes some behavior in Jamilah’s sons that appears unsupportive of her. In order to heal properly
from this heart attack, Jamilah needs to be seen by cardiologists and potentially undergo a procedure
like cardiac catheterization or bypass surgery.
Three Ethical Dilemmas
There are legal implications associated with the following three ethical dilemmas: autonomy,
beneficence, and non-maleficence. Autonomy is defined as a person’s right to make their own decisions
(Pozgar, 2020). Legally, all adults (with clear and conscious decision-making capabilities) must have the
option to make their own healthcare and treatment choices (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Beneficence is
defined as the standard of goodness, kindness, and assisting others (Pozgar, 2020). This ideal intertwines
with autonomy in a legal sense in that when a patient and physician disagree on the best course of
action, the patient must show clear understanding of what they are declining and what the
repercussions of that refusal may entail (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Non-maleficence is defined as the
decree requiring healthcare providers to do no harm (Pozgar, 2020). Additionally, this means that the
result of a patient’s treatment should leave the patient as good as or better than they arrived in both a
physical and emotional state (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). Nonmaleficence can sometimes clash with
beneficence because sometimes treatments, regardless of their possible benefit, can cause residual
harm to the patient (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022). If a physician decides to go against a patient’s
autonomous decision, the physician can be charged with medical battery (Valdova, 2020). Autonomy can
sometimes overshadow beneficence because a patient has a right to refuse care regardless of how much
it could potentially benefit them (Valdova, 2020). In the case of Jamilah, she has no paperwork other
than a non-legally-binding “emergency contact” designation on her face sheet from her long-term care
facility. If the physicians decide to withhold care at the request of her son, they can face legal action
2
