describe what you feel the case study is related to when answering the question vou have chosen.

Non maleficience- (refraining from harming I am in a position to potentially myself or another) destroys or otherwise harms someone else.

Beneficence - (bringing about good) I am in a position to benefit someone else.

Fidelity - (promise Keeping) I have made a promise, explicit or Implicit, to someone else.

Veracity - I am in a position to tell the truth or deceive someone

Justice- I am in a position to distribute benefits and burdens among Individuals or groups in society who have legitimate claims on the benefits.

Reparations - I have wronged someone else.

Gratitude- I have been the beneficiary of someone else's goodness.

Transcribed Image Text:

In XM, Wado entrys Mape Co 4-5 Curative care Electroencephalogram (EEG) Euthanasia Expired Passive euthanasia Persistent vegetative state (PVS) Principle of double-effect. Quality of life treatment Withholding life-sustaining treatment The Case of Marguerite M. and the Angiogram Marguerite M., an 89-year-old widow, is admitted into the car- diac intensive care unit in Chicago's Memorial Hospital at 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning with a massive heart attack (myocardial infarction). Her internist, Dr. K., who is also a close family friend, has ordered an angiogram to determine the status of Marguerite's infarction. Dr. K. knows that the angiogram and resulting treat- ment need to be done within the first six hours after an infarc- tion in order to be effective. Therefore, the procedure is going to be done as soon as the on-call surgical team can set up the angiography room. The radiologist, who lives 30 minutes from the hospital, must also be in the hospital before the procedure can begin. At 4:30 AM the team is ready to have Marguerite, who is barely conscious, transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the surgical suite. Coincidentally, at 4:30 AM Sarah W., an unconscious 45-year- old woman, is brought in by ambulance with a massive heart attack. The emergency department (ED) physicians, after confer- ring with her physician by phone, conclude that she will need (continued) 305 In XM, Wado entrys Mape Co 4-5 Curative care Electroencephalogram (EEG) Euthanasia Expired Passive euthanasia Persistent vegetative state (PVS) Principle of double-effect. Quality of life treatment Withholding life-sustaining treatment The Case of Marguerite M. and the Angiogram Marguerite M., an 89-year-old widow, is admitted into the car- diac intensive care unit in Chicago's Memorial Hospital at 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning with a massive heart attack (myocardial infarction). Her internist, Dr. K., who is also a close family friend, has ordered an angiogram to determine the status of Marguerite's infarction. Dr. K. knows that the angiogram and resulting treat- ment need to be done within the first six hours after an infarc- tion in order to be effective. Therefore, the procedure is going to be done as soon as the on-call surgical team can set up the angiography room. The radiologist, who lives 30 minutes from the hospital, must also be in the hospital before the procedure can begin. At 4:30 AM the team is ready to have Marguerite, who is barely conscious, transferred from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the surgical suite. Coincidentally, at 4:30 AM Sarah W., an unconscious 45-year- old woman, is brought in by ambulance with a massive heart attack. The emergency department (ED) physicians, after confer- ring with her physician by phone, conclude that she will need (continued) 305