Tamara Mabrouk

2/4/2020

Art of Medicine

As I reflect on this article about a child’s right to her own life, I wonder how these ethics

of medicine apply here. The 11 year old girl in this article suffers from a cruel fate rendering her

unable to speak and make decisions about her medical practices. The first principle of medical

ethics is a patient’s right to their own autonomy and the duty a physician has to uphold and

respect that autonomy. The physician would be required to fully inform them of all the benefits

and risks of their condition or any future treatments. In this case, the child is 11 years old, and

her mother is making decisions on her behalf. Since she is a minor, I do feel as though the

physicians are respecting the mother’s desire for her daughter to live, but since the child is

unable to speak and express any discomfort, I don’t feel as though her autonomy is being

respected by the mother or the physicians.

The second principle of medical ethics is the principle of nonmaleficence. This

essentially means that physicians have a duty to ensure that where it can be controlled, a patient

should not be harmed. This is arguable in this case because we can’t truly say for sure whether or

not the girl has gone unharmed, by being kept alive in essentially a vegetative state. Does she

feel pain, fear, or uncertainty in her condition? These are questions we simply do not have the

answer to. It’s not fair to say whether or not this second principle is being upheld by either

parties involved.

The third principle of medical ethics is the principle of beneficence. Physicians have a

duty to provide a benefit for their patients. Whatever that benefit may be, whether it be listening

to their patients, taking a stand in their treatment, or simply providing a listening ear. It can be
argued whether the mother is assuming the role of the patient because I would not say that the

physicians are fulfilling this third principle. Although it’s not up to the physicians to provide a

direct benefit to the patient simply because she is a minor and they are mandated by law to

respect the mother’s wishes, I can imagine they are frustrated with the lack of direct care they are

able to provide the child.

The fourth and last principle of medical ethics is the principle of justice. Patients have a

right to the control of their health and the right to be treated equally, regardless of sex assigned at

birth, religion, race, or sexual identity. Every patient should be listened to and be afforded the

opportunity to have their concerns validated. In this situation, the patient’s concerns can easily be

dismissed due to the fact that she is nonverbal and has someone else in charge of her medical

decisions. Although I don’t deny that the mother has her daughter’s best interests at heart, I do

worry that the patient is not getting the justice that she deserves due to the mother’s invested

emotions in her daughter’s condition.

I cannot relate to the mother’s experience since I am not a mother myself and do not even

know the insurmountable pain she is probably experiencing. The difficulty of losing a child,

whether they are still physically there or are, is unimaginable to me, simply because I have never

experienced it. From my view as a future health professional, I can only comment on what I

would objectively do. My opinion would be to remove life support for the child, simply under

the view that not all of her wishes are being respected. Furthermore, she is unable to fully

advocate for herself we can only objectively comment on how much pain she is in with the

frequent revivals she has to experience. I cannot watch a patient suffer like this, unable to speak

on the amount of pain they are no doubt experiencing, and allow them to continue. I want to
advocate for my patients as best as I can and allow them to live as much as they deem fit to do

so, but I cannot in good faith allow someone to suffer the way this child has.