Health Care Ethics

The Bartling baptismal font was about whether William Bartling had the right, over the objection of his physicians and the hospital, to have life-support equipment disconnected contempt the fact that withdrawal of such devices will surely hasten his death. When he entered Glendale Adventist Hospital in California in 1984, he was known to be suffering from emphysema and diffuse arteriosclerosis, coronary arteriosclerosis, abdominal aneurysm, and inoperable lung cancer.At the end, He had to use mechanical respiratory and chest tube to assist his subsisting in the ICU. Although each of these conditions could individually be lethal, he was not diagnosed as terminally ill. At offshoot, Mr. Bartling asked his physicians to remove the ventilator but they refused. Then Mr. Bartling act to remove the ventilator tubes but was unsuccessful. Eventually, to prevent his attempt, he was placed in restraints so that the tubes could remain in place. The causal agent was taken to Los Angeles Sup erior judgeship by Mr. Scott.Because he was not considered terminally ill, the court refused either to seize the respirator to be disconnected or to order that Mr. Bartlings transfer be freed. At the second time, the case was taken to the California court of law of Appeal. However, the result was that Mr. Bartling had the right to fix his own decision, which was obviously different with the first time. So I think the main issue in this case is about patients decision-making capacity, specifically, when patient is able to make make the decision of his own medical treatments.