Table of ContentsIntroductionHebertDworkin and DresserCritical AnalysisConclusionIntroductionIn this article, I will discuss the case from the perspective of Hébert, Dworkin, and Dresser. Then I will give my opinion on how the doctor and the son should proceed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayHebertHebert defines competence as “an assessment of functional abilities.” A set of guidelines can be defined to determine whether a person is competent or not. That is, the rationale for a choice must be strong, the patient must understand their current state, and the patient must be aware of all possible outcomes of their decision. If a patient follows all guidelines, they are fully competent and should be involved in the decision-making process. Under these guidelines, Mr. K is not competent because he is unaware of his current condition. His son took him home because he could no longer care for Mr. K, as is often the case with Alzheimer's patients, as it can make a person more prone to incidents such as fires due to food left in the oven or increased aggression towards people. The latter case seems to be the case of Mr. K since he was violent towards some of his guards at home. Mr. K thinks that the reason he was taken to the home is not because of his illness, but because his son just wants to get rid of him. If Mr. K understood his condition, he would understand that he could harm himself or others and that it would be best for him to go to the home. As Mr. K is incompetent, a substitute decision-maker must be chosen. This place will be taken by Lawrence, his son, and it is important to determine whether he is making decisions based on what his father would have wanted to do when he was competent. As in case 6.6, where the husband kept the wife alive because he could not let her go, despite her previous wishes. If the son begins to do things based on what is best for himself rather than Mr. decisions. Although Mr. K is incompetent, he should be involved in the decision-making process for reasons of beneficence and justice. In terms of charity, everyone, including MK, would benefit from his involvement. Mr. K suspects that people are conspiring to get rid of him because he is afraid of being a burden and being abandoned by his son. In response, Mr. K acts. If he was involved, his suspicions would lessen at least a little, and maybe he would stop being so aggressive. The caretakers and the son will benefit from having fewer problems with Mr. K and he will be calmer in his daily activities. Concerning justice, it is right that the patient tells him what will happen to him. Regardless of how the treatment goes, Mr. K will go through a difficult time. Mr. K must participate in the decision-making to determine the best palliative care, because after all, he is the one who will feel the pain. Advance directives should also be considered, but they need to be revised. Someone needs to read exactly what the advance directive says. If the advance directives say something similar to what the son says, then we need to determine what is meant by “heroic measures.” According to Duhaime's legal dictionary, a heroic measure is any artificial measure without which a person would die. In this case, chemotherapy is an artificial method that would allow Mr. K to live longer. Thus, thetreatment for his prostate cancer would go against his advanced directive. It should also be considered that Mr. K never said what kind of situation he had in mind when he wrote his advance directives. He could have thought of a situation where he was unconscious. Since he is conscious now, and although he is not competent, it is fair to discuss with him what he may have meant. Dworkin and Dresser “Experiential interests” are things we enjoy doing, like watching TV on a rainy day, while “critical interests” are more deeply rooted in us, because For example, someone dreams that a One day he will have children. Together, they make us live happy and fulfilling lives. Although our critical interests play a larger role, for example, someone may have a fracture that causes a painful experience, but the hope of being healthy makes the experience bearable. Minds are very complex and so everyone has different definitions of what they consider to be their critical and experiential interests. So it's a matter of respecting someone's autonomy to respect what they value. Someone who wrote an advance directive did so because they wanted to avoid certain experiences. As is the case with Mr. K, who does not want to be kept alive by heroic measures. This could be due to fear of feeling discomfort from treatments or any conditions that happen to him. Since this advance directive exists, the doctor and Lawrence should respect it and not treat the cancer, but let the father die naturally from the cancer. The advance directives left by Mr. K seem very mysterious. It is not clear what the actual content is since the son probably does not know the full content of the directive. Since the context in which advance directives are unknown, different reactions may arise. If Mr. K made the advance directive in the presence of a lawyer and demonstrated that he was a competent person at the time of making the decision, then the ordered advance can be respected. On the other hand, if Mr. K has not demonstrated his competence then his It is no better than deciding on treatment as an incompetent adult suffering from Alzheimer's disease. In addition, it must be determined whether Mr. K formulated the advance directives without pressure. If a family member pressured him in any way to write the advance directive, then following the advance directive is an absolute violation of MK's autonomy. Dementia patients are no less complex than a healthy person. Even though their interests may not be the same as when they did not suffer from the disease. A dementia patient still feels emotions in the same way as any other person, and in the case of a terminally ill patient, like Mr. K, it is important to keep this in mind. The son and the doctor should ask Mr. K if he feels comfortable, if his pain is increasing or decreasing, and they should explain to him why and what we are going to do to him.Critical AnalysisIn my opinion, Mr. K is incapable of making decisions himself. It's because I think he's in a state of confusion. I don't believe a decision can be made if someone lacks certainty. Ambivalence can facilitate coercion towards the patient. If Mr. K were competent, he would be able to understand why he is in the house. Instead, he becomes aggressive and refuses to accept that his son won't come for him. I believe his inability to understand that his son left him there is caused by Alzheimer's disease. If his memory loss is sufficiently advanced that he forgets a..