Ms. Elizabeth Bouvia, the petitioner, and The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Harry Glenchur, are the parties involved in this case. Ms. Bouvia is a patient requesting the removal of a life sustaining feeding tube, whereas, Glenchur is the representative for the facility whom is refusing the removal as it is keeping Ms. Bouvia alive.

The medical ethics principles that are at hand in this case are the right to refuse treatment, but also to uphold The Hippocratic Oath. The patient's request to remove the feeding tube will ultimately end her life by means of starvation. Although a patient does have the right to refuse treatment, the healthcare workers have an obligation to follow that "method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients." (Practo, 2015). Ms. Bouvia has a medical condition that will not improve. She is yearning for an ending to her, what she believes, meaningless life. Her request to stop receiving nutrients via a feeding tube is a right to refuse treatment, but Ms. Bouvia is receiving morphine from another tube inserted in her body to keep her pain manageable. She is not refusing all treatment, only one that will cease her nutrient intake. Whereas refusing treatment is a right in medical facilities, when a patient refuses treatment, they are released. In Ms. Bouvia's case, she still requires basic care and a morphine drip.

The physicians working on Ms. Bouvia, refuse to remove the feeing tube because the implications it will cause. Removing the feeding tube will result in starvation, and thus end in death. This manner of death can be seen as assisted suicide, which will not be performed by the healthcare responsible party. This goes against the benefit of the patient and what physicians believe to be inhumane.

As a member of the ethical committee, I have reviewed both sides of the case. Many other legal cases have been provided to help determine the best course of action. Because Ms. Bouvia wants to be treated like all patients and be given the right to refuse medical treatment, with the result of removing the feeding tube keeping her alive, and the physicians feel that course of action would legally and ethically going against their oath as physicians by assisting with a suicide. Although Ms. Bouvia is a quadriplegic and cannot perform basic necessities for herself, she does have a competent mind and can make decisions (Fisher, 1987). It is an ethical issue for the facility to honor part of Ms. Bouvia's request. Without receiving nutrients, Ms. Bouvia's organs will slowly start to shut down, but Ms. Bouvia will still require care that will have staff members in and out of her room consistently. This also creates hardship and an ethical issue for all staff who interact with her. I would propose that options be given to Ms. Bouvia along with education, so she can best decide her desired result. Ms. Bouvia can obtain her request for refusing treatment and will be released from the hospital's care, or she can follow the advice of medical personnel and continue to receive treatment.

(READ THE ABOVE and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW)

Which ideas or thoughts did you read that you found interesting or insightful? How did these ideas or thoughts inform your own thinking?

Are there any sections that you think you read that could expound upon? (e.g. "I'd really like to hear more about how you think political corruption is a primary factor in this case.")

What thoughts or questions does your reading response trigger for you?

What would you have done as a healthcare administrator?