Help with my Case Study
Hey all - so I am currently working on my first case study for a Biomedical Ethics course (required for my Nursing program) and I would like some open discussion to occur. My prof encourages this so worry not - both cases will be posted below. I am leaning towards one of them but have done some outlines for both.

Case 1
Mr S, a 70-year-old male, has a history of recurrent deep depression, mood swings
and bouts of irrationality which have estranged him from his children. He has no
other living relatives. He undergoes a routine physical examination with Dr Y in
preparation for a long-awaited and much-anticipated trip to Australia, the first thing
he’s been enthusiastic about since the death of his wife three years before. In fact,
planning and anticipating this trip has lifted Mr S out of a depression lingering since
his wife’s death. Dr Y suspects a serious problem and orders more extensive testing,
including further blood analysis and a prostate biopsy, which establish that Mr S has
an inoperable, incurable tumour of the prostate. The tumour is not yet advanced,
and is relatively slow-growing. Dr Y, having treated Mr S for many years, is aware of
his history of depression, including a prior suicide attempt after losing his wife to a
difficult and protracted battle with cancer. While Mr S is currently rational and
capable of making decisions, such as planning his trip, past history indicates that he
does not cope well when informed of serious health problems. He has a tendency to
worry excessively and think and act irrationally when faced with such problems. Dr
Y is concerned that if he informs Mr S of the cancer, Mr S will not go on his trip and
may fall into a deep depression during which he may attempt to harm himself or
even commit suicide. The slow progression of the cancer ensures that Mr S will not
suffer the effects of the cancer while on his trip. Dr Y concludes that he is justified in
withholding this diagnosis and prognosis from Mr S, at least until he returns from
his trip. While in the office receiving the last of his inoculations to enter Australia,
Mr S asks nervously, “Am I alright? I don’t have cancer, do I?” Dr Y tells him, “You’re
as good as you were ten years ago.” Although the outright lie makes the physician
uncomfortable, he believes that he is justified and that lying in this case is the best
way to help his patient.

Case 2
Jimmy T is an 11-year-old boy who suffers from lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic
system). The oncologist has indicated that without chemotherapy Jimmy is likely to
die within six months. She has also indicated that chemotherapy provides an
effective cure in only 20 percent of cases like Jimmy’s; in most cases, chemotherapy
produces at best an additional three-month to six-month extension of life. Jimmy is
also compromised by an incurable neurological disease. This disease will eventually
make it impossible for him to walk, talk, use his hands effectively, or control his
excretory functions. Already his speech is slurred, and he cannot hold a pencil.
Even without the lymphoma, the prognosis for him because of the neurological
disease is death by the age of 18. Jimmy has been raised in a strong religious
environment, and his belief in God has been an important comforting factor for him.
After having the facts fully explained to him, he has accepted his situation and the
inevitability of his death at a young age. He says that he does not want the
chemotherapy and that he is ready to “go to God”. His parents, however, cannot
reconcile themselves to losing Jimmy. They override Jimmy’s decision and tell the
oncologist to proceed with the chemotherapy.


After I hear some opinions, arguments, etc... from you guys, I will give you some of mine and we can go back and forth. Basically what I have to do is demonstrate what I have learned by explaining what is going on in the case (paternalism, adolescent decision-making, information disclosure, etc...) and form an opinion on the basis of that information. What it is, how does it work, what are the benefits & issues, etc...
Also if you have never taken a Philosophy course and/or do not know the technical terms for what is occurring in each case, that is okay with me, straight opinion is most welcome. Of course I will not plagiarize anything that you guys say but I am more using this as a chance to bounce my ideas around. I will be more than happy to share my finished product with you as well.

Thanks all!

Help with my Case Study
Hey all - so I am currently working on my first case study for a Biomedical Ethics course (required for my Nursing program) and I would like some open discussion to occur. My prof encourages this so worry not - both cases will be posted below. I am leaning towards one of them but have done some outlines for both.

Case 1
Mr S, a 70-year-old male, has a history of recurrent deep depression, mood swings
and bouts of irrationality which have estranged him from his children. He has no
other living relatives. He undergoes a routine physical examination with Dr Y in
preparation for a long-awaited and much-anticipated trip to Australia, the first thing
he’s been enthusiastic about since the death of his wife three years before. In fact,
planning and anticipating this trip has lifted Mr S out of a depression lingering since
his wife’s death. Dr Y suspects a serious problem and orders more extensive testing,
including further blood analysis and a prostate biopsy, which establish that Mr S has
an inoperable, incurable tumour of the prostate. The tumour is not yet advanced,
and is relatively slow-growing. Dr Y, having treated Mr S for many years, is aware of
his history of depression, including a prior suicide attempt after losing his wife to a
difficult and protracted battle with cancer. While Mr S is currently rational and
capable of making decisions, such as planning his trip, past history indicates that he
does not cope well when informed of serious health problems. He has a tendency to
worry excessively and think and act irrationally when faced with such problems. Dr
Y is concerned that if he informs Mr S of the cancer, Mr S will not go on his trip and
may fall into a deep depression during which he may attempt to harm himself or
even commit suicide. The slow progression of the cancer ensures that Mr S will not
suffer the effects of the cancer while on his trip. Dr Y concludes that he is justified in
withholding this diagnosis and prognosis from Mr S, at least until he returns from
his trip. While in the office receiving the last of his inoculations to enter Australia,
Mr S asks nervously, “Am I alright? I don’t have cancer, do I?” Dr Y tells him, “You’re
as good as you were ten years ago.” Although the outright lie makes the physician
uncomfortable, he believes that he is justified and that lying in this case is the best
way to help his patient.

Case 2
Jimmy T is an 11-year-old boy who suffers from lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic
system). The oncologist has indicated that without chemotherapy Jimmy is likely to
die within six months. She has also indicated that chemotherapy provides an
effective cure in only 20 percent of cases like Jimmy’s; in most cases, chemotherapy
produces at best an additional three-month to six-month extension of life. Jimmy is
also compromised by an incurable neurological disease. This disease will eventually
make it impossible for him to walk, talk, use his hands effectively, or control his
excretory functions. Already his speech is slurred, and he cannot hold a pencil.
Even without the lymphoma, the prognosis for him because of the neurological
disease is death by the age of 18. Jimmy has been raised in a strong religious
environment, and his belief in God has been an important comforting factor for him.
After having the facts fully explained to him, he has accepted his situation and the
inevitability of his death at a young age. He says that he does not want the
chemotherapy and that he is ready to “go to God”. His parents, however, cannot
reconcile themselves to losing Jimmy. They override Jimmy’s decision and tell the
oncologist to proceed with the chemotherapy.


After I hear some opinions, arguments, etc... from you guys, I will give you some of mine and we can go back and forth. Basically what I have to do is demonstrate what I have learned by explaining what is going on in the case (paternalism, adolescent decision-making, information disclosure, etc...) and form an opinion on the basis of that information. What it is, how does it work, what are the benefits & issues, etc...
Also if you have never taken a Philosophy course and/or do not know the technical terms for what is occurring in each case, that is okay with me, straight opinion is most welcome. Of course I will not plagiarize anything that you guys say but I am more using this as a chance to bounce my ideas around. I will be more than happy to share my finished product with you as well.

Thanks all!