Reference no: EM133510675

Seventy-nine-year old Mr. J has been diagnosed with a rare liver cancer. The oncologist informs Mr. J that although he is willing to attempt a round of chemotherapy, no treatment has been effective in extending life for more than few months for this aggressive type of cancer. Mr J and his 66 year old wife are devastated by this information and look to the internet for help. They read testimonials of patient who have had similar liver cancers whose lives allegedly were extended for several years with an alternative treatment offered by a hospital in Germany. The make contact with the hospital in germany every 2 months. Each of the hospitalizations cost $25,000 plus the couple's travel expenses. The couple has no savings but owns a very modest house; they have no children. The couple discusses this option with the oncologist, who discourages the alternatives treatment, stating, "your time and money would be better spent in enjoying the remaining time you have together and making preparations for Mr J's declining health and ultimate death". Despite the physician's discouraging remarks, Mr. J wants to mortgage the house to pay for the alternative treatment. Mrs. J wants to help her husband extend his life but is concerned that she will face the prospect of losing the house or being required to pay off the mortgage on her limited social security check long after Mr. J dies. She is not comfortable with the idea, but feels that if she voices her concerns, her husband, friends, and family will consider her uncaring.

1. Does Mr. J have the right to deplete the couple's resources for a questionable treatment that may only extend his life for a few months?

2. Does Mrs. J have the right to oppose this plan?

3. Does Mr. J''s physician have the right to dash Mr. J's hopes?

4. How could you assist the couple?