The principle of ‘do no harm’ causes a dilemma for healthcare providers in this context as the removal of the feeding tube is tantamount to causing harm to the patient.
There has also been much debate on whether PVS patients are able to feel hunger or thirst for water, but doctors have concurred that a PVS patient with significant damage to the brain, can neither feel hunger, thirst and even pain (Roach 2005; Arenella n.d.).
Healthcare providers should be told clearly of that the withdrawal of the feeding tube is both ethically and legally right in this instance. In the interest of better staff management, a healthcare provider who feels that removing the feeding tube contravenes their ethical values should be allowed to not …show more content…
The decision is made in the best interest of Terri, as a recovery to a normal life is highly unlikely given her condition (Brown & Murray 2005).
---
As medical technology advances relentlessly to the human quest of immortality, new technology is constantly being researched and developed to prolong the human life. When it’s finally time to bid farewell to a loved one, family members often find it unacceptable that further help has been stopped on the basis that the patient is technically dead. Healthcare professionals then have to struggle with the ethical dilemmas of whether any further action is beneficial to the patient or not.
But one thing is usually in consensus – nobody would want to see their loved ones suffer. How the healthcare professional communicates the best ethical decision to the surviving family members is often the key to resolving such dilemmas. By helping family members to understand the rationale behind the end-of-life care provided, conflicts can be prevented and the energy channeled towards allowing the patient to have a ‘good death’ (Department of Health