This case displays the worry some have regarding how involved families should be in adult patients' medical decisions. The main ethical dilemma involves whether a patient should make their own autonomous medical decisions or whether the family should play a role in helping the patient make a decision. Assuming the patient is competent, one viewpoint is that the patient should be responsible for deciding their course of action. Families may add pressure concerning their own interests or priorities, which may interfere with what is best for the patient. On the other hand, some feel that patients who are closely connected with their families may find it comforting and beneficial to discuss the situation with them. Together, they can review the options and come to a decision. In either case, the doctors should abide by what the patient determines. In this case Sam had responded positively in having a CPR if needed because he had said "If my heart stops beating, just get it going again". However, Sam's condition deteriorated and there was a difference of opinion between Sam's wife Gladys and his daughter Anne. Gladys wanted to go with the wish of Sam whereas Anne was of the view that her dad should not be put through the cruelty of giving CPR. There are valid arguments for both sides of the dilemma. I feel the ultimate decision lies with the patient. However, in my opinion, family plays an important role in helping the patient make a decision. It is morally correct to assume that family is genuine in aiding their loved ones. Doctors sometimes believe that getting family involved may not be favorable. However, unless the patient expresses otherwise, the doctor should trust that the patient understands the situation. It should not be assumed that the family and patient will have a conflict, such as pressure from the family to come to a specific conclusion. As I reflect on this situation, I feel that Doctor Gupta should respect Sam's wish to have the CPR and should go ahead with it