[Method of analysing ethical conflicts in care practice].

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Clinical Decision-Making
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Clinical decisions often occur under uncertainty, necessitating prudence and reasonableness.
• Two prominent bioethical methodologies are casuistry and principalism, differing in their foundational principles but sharing similar content.

Purpose of the Study:

• To apply casuist and principalist bioethical frameworks to a practical case involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
• To outline a four-step deliberative process for navigating complex clinical ethical dilemmas.

Main Methods:

• Clinical evaluation of medical intervention indications.
• Consideration of the principle of justice and equitable resource allocation.
• Assessment of patient autonomy, including capacity, information, and voluntariness.
• Evaluation of the principle of benefit, focusing on quality of life and patient preferences.

Main Results:

• The analysis involves a structured, four-step approach to ethical decision-making.
• Each step addresses critical bioethical principles: clinical indication, justice, autonomy, and benefit/quality of life.
• The proposed method emphasizes deliberation and weighing principles based on case-specific data.

Conclusions:

• A deliberative process, integrating clinical evaluation with ethical principles, is proposed for uncertain clinical situations.
• The methodology advocates for prioritizing ethical principles based on the unique data of each case.
• This approach aims to guide healthcare professionals in making ethically sound decisions, particularly in complex scenarios like end-of-life care.