Reference no: EM133385894

A man, age twenty-six, is involved in a horrible explosion. He survives, but approximately sixty-five percent of his body is covered with third degree burns, his ears are virtually destroyed, his fingers are burned off to the second joint, and his eyes are so damaged that both of them have to be removed. He is in constant unbearable pain, even with substantial doses of narcotics.

Despite his condition, the man's prognosis for survival is quite good. Nonetheless, he has, from the moment of his initial rescue by paramedics through the various stages of his ten years of treatment and recovery, consistently and explicitly expressed a resolute desire not to be treated and thus to die.

Given this case, write an essay in which you address the following questions:

First, what moral dilemma does this case pose and why? 
Secondly, did the health care professionals involved in this case have a moral obligation (a) to rescue and (b) to continue treatment of this man? Address this question from the perspective of the principle of autonomy and the principle of beneficence. 
Finally, do you believe the ethical principles involved in cases such as this are reconcilable? If so, why? If not, why not?