Pamela Hamilton Case Summary

1838121 Group Discussion #3 In the case of Pamela Hamilton, the 12 year old cancer patient, it would have been inappropriate to obtain a court order for her proposed treatment. Pamela, diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma of the femur with possible metastasis to the spinal column, and her father refused treatment on the grounds of religious objection. Under some cases, a court order would be appropriate, but given the low chances of success, as well as the likely side effects from the treatment, in addition to the religious objections of the family, a court order should not be filed. This case raises the question of what is more important, the ability of a patient and her family to make autonomous decisions, or the duty of a physician to act with beneficence and non-malfeasance. Given the age of the patient, 12 years old, I would normally say that she should not be allowed to make this kind of decision on her own, especially considering that the reason for her to refuse treatment is based on the religion forced upon her by her parents. In spite of this, in light of the severity of the situation, I think that her wishes should be respected. The treatment for Ewing's …show more content…
In this case, withholding treatment would be considered "letting the patient die" instead of "killing the patient," and a patient should be allowed to die in the case of medical futility or if the patient or their authorized caretakers validly refuse the treatment. The proposed treatment is risky, but I wouldn't call it futile. I would say, however, that the parents are authorized caretakers of their daughter, and because both the parents and Pamela are refusing treatment, it would be morally unacceptable to force it on them. Pamela meets the requirements for a patient to be allowed to die without treatment. Therefore, a court order would not have been an appropriate measure to

Show More

Related Documents: Pamela Hamilton Case Summary

Report on Feasibility Study on Made to Measure Garments Essay