Miles S H
Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Health Prog. 1991 Dec;72(10):30-1, 62.
In 1990, 87-year-old Helga Wanglie suffered cardiac arrest while being treated for lung disease at a chronic care facility. When she failed to regain consciousness after being resuscitated, a physician suggested the possibility of discontinuing treatment. At this point, her family requested that she be transferred to a hospital for evaluation. After a variety of procedures failed to improve her condition, the attending physician told the family he was no longer willing to prescribe the respirator because it could not serve her personal medical interests and that her unconscious state precluded the possibility of her appreciating life. However, the family insisted that the hospital provide Ms. Wanglie care, and she remained in treatment until she died 13 months later. The dispute between the hospital and the Wanglie family brings into focus the fundamental premises of the doctor-patient-family relationship. The rules for these relationships-described by such terms as "rights," "responsibilities," and "informed consent"--have both private and public dimensions. Mr. Wanglie had a clear right to be fully informed of all medically reasonable treatments and a right to choose or refuse any therapy the physician prescribed. He did not, however, have a right to demand any treatment he wanted.
1990年,87岁的赫尔加·旺利在一家慢性病护理机构治疗肺病时心脏骤停。复苏后她未能恢复意识,一名医生建议停止治疗。此时,她的家人要求将她转至医院进行评估。在各种治疗手段均未能改善她的病情后,主治医生告知家人,他不再愿意给她使用呼吸器,因为这不符合她的个人医疗利益,而且她的昏迷状态使她无法感受生活。然而,家人坚持要求医院对旺利女士进行护理,她一直在接受治疗,直到13个月后去世。医院与旺利家人之间的纠纷使医患-家属关系的基本前提成为焦点。这些关系的规则——用“权利”“责任”和“知情同意”等术语来描述——具有私人和公共两个层面。旺利先生有权充分了解所有医学上合理的治疗方法,有权选择或拒绝医生开的任何治疗方案。然而,他无权要求任何他想要的治疗。