In relation to the scenario below, discuss relevant ethical and legal issues that relate to decision making regarding treatment vs non-treatment.
Please note, you are not being asked to take a particular viewpoint/position here, but rather to discuss key issues relevant to the scenario. This is not a discussion about pathophysiology, nor about euthanasia.
Mr GB is a 67 year old male with hypertension, chronic renal failure and Type 2 diabetes. He was originally admitted to hospital following a dense cardiovascular accident (CVA or 'stroke') which has left him with unilateral weakness and aphasia (inability to speak). Four weeks later GB now has a non-functioning kidney and to survive, will need haemodialysis three times per week. His family is divided about whether he should undergo such treatment and are unable to reach agreement.
Using the ethical principles of beneficence/non-maleficence, discuss issues of treatment vs non-treatment relevant to the above scenario. You could consider issues such as:
An exhaustive list of arguments is not required, rather, you should address a fewer number of points in depth.
Your arguments/discussion points should be logical and objective, and address relevant issues. To achieve this, avoid "I feel" or "I believe" statements. This is different to the Journal. Write in the third person using formal academic writing.