Anorexia Nervosa and Life-Sustaining Treatment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Background
Facts
Opinions
The strengths and weaknesses of the pro side
The strengths and weaknesses of the con side
The credibility of the Authors
Conclusions
Reference list

Background

Anorexia nervosa is a psychiatric health complication characterized by poor eating habits, weight loss, and development of serious medical symptoms, which are sometimes treatable if detected in the early stages of the illness. Therefore, the primary care for patients with anorexia nervosa requires administration of various dietary and mental medical interventions and a clear understanding of different concepts and ethical issues related to the treatment of the disorder (Mehler, 2009, p. 1050). As a result, this essay analyses issue 2, ‘Should individuals with Anorexia Nervosa have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment?’ relative to the effectiveness of the pro and con sides in exploring various concepts related to the issue. Subsequently, the essay reviews contemporary studies on the same topic, which supports the con side of issue 2.

Facts

Heather Draper who represents the pro side of the discussion is quick to note that it is not right to refer to all patients with anorexia nervosa as being mentally unstable because some of them may be competent enough to make rational decisions. Therefore, it is unethical and unlawful to force competent patients to undertake certain medical interventions contrary to their wish. In addition, Draper notes that health professionals should respect the decision made by competent patients to refuse therapy by considering certain ethical considerations, which respect the patient’s autonomy (Draper, 2000).

Conversely, James Werth and other researchers representing the con side of the discussion note that since most patients with anorexia nervosa are known to suffer from serious cases of thought disturbances, their competency in rational decision-making is questionable. Therefore, there is the need for health professionals to decide the most appropriate medical and dietary interventions for such patients. In so doing, the patient’s weight stabilizes to allow the restoration and stabilization of the patient’s cognitive capacity, which influences the success of the subsequent psychological and pharmacological interventions (Werth et al., 2003).

Opinions

To support his case, Draper posits that the dietary interventions provided to patients with anorexia nervosa, which involves forced feeding, is ineffective in terms of reversing the medical condition. As a result, the author notes that most patients may be much better if they are allowed to choose the most desirable quality of life relative to their health condition thereby leading positive and confident lives (Draper, 2000). On the other hand, Werth and his team note that allowing patients to make decisions regarding therapy exacerbates their current health condition. Therefore, they predict that most patients will be grateful for the decisions made by the health professionals regarding their treatment (Werth et al., 2003).

The strengths and weaknesses of the pro side

Draper presents a strong case to support the issue by making a logical argument, which is characterized by a clear understanding of the concepts and issues regarding the disorder. In addition, Draper demonstrates an excellent review of the most recent research studies that support his case and therefore he does not use vague statements to run across different arguments. However, Draper underemphasizes some statements, which appear to be contrary to his argument. Additionally, the case presented by Draper lacks important statistical data to support the conclusive arguments and evidence provided.

The strengths and weaknesses of the con side

Werth and his colleagues present a much stronger case characterized by a clear and in-depth understanding of the issue. In addition, the con side demonstrates that the case presented is based on an extensive research study that reviews the most recent research studies and case studies on the same topic. Conversely, the authors are keen to note the practical implications of their case and in so doing; they demonstrate a clear understanding of the paramount need for health professionals to address the issues regarding the disorder. Furthermore, the authors provide a clearly defined thesis statement and a strong conclusion that draws from the main discussions.

However, the con side fails to use statistically analyzed data to support some of the conclusive statements described. On the other hand, the con-side reviews published materials only thereby failing to review unpublished sources, which could be having supportive or contradicting information regarding the current issue.

The credibility of the Authors

The authors of both sides can win the confidence of readers relative to their reliability because they both present strong arguments based on credible evidence. However, Draper’s case may pass as an expression of wishful thinking to a critical reader because it lacks the vigor and the professional quality of presenting strong and convincing arguments. On the other hand, the con side presents a much stronger and reliable case considering that it covers a wider scope and defines several concepts and ideas regarding the current issue as opposed to Draper’s case.

Therefore, based on the statements presented in issue 2, I subscribe to the arguments presented by the con side of the issue because Werth and his colleagues are keen to provide a strong argument for each possible counter-argument. In so doing, the case presented by the con side is much stronger and it reflects an evidence-based analysis of a critical issue. In addition, the authors consider most of the ethical issues involved in the current issue besides noting the flexibility allowable on some of the issues when caring for patients with anorexia nervosa. As a result, the authors demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the current issue.

Conclusions

Overall, this essay analyzes issue 2, ‘Should individuals with Anorexia Nervosa have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment?’ in the context of the issues presented by the pro and the con side of the issue. From the discussions above, it is notable both sides present strong arguments based on various studies on the current issue. However, contemporary research studies regarding the primary care for patients with anorexia nervosa supports the con side of the current issue. For instance, Mehler, (2009, p. 1048) notes that most patients with Anorexia Nervosa disregard the severity of their health conditions due to their altered ability of judgment and cognition. As a result, the patients will seek psychiatric attention when their health condition has worsened and in this situation, most patients are unable to make rational decisions concerning therapy. Therefore, it is the duty of the primary care giver to develop the most appropriate dietary and medical interventions relative to the severity of the patient’s condition (Mehler, 2009).

Reference list

Draper, H. (2000). Anorexia Nervosa and respecting a refusal of life-prolonging therapy: A limited justification. Bioethics, 14 (2), 261-278.

Mehler, P.S. (2009). Diagnosis and care of patients with Anorexia Nervosa in primary care settings. Anals of Internal Medicine, 134 (11), 1048-1059.

Werth, L.J., et al. (2003). When does the “Duty to Protect” apply with a client who has Anorexia Nervosa? The Counseling Psychologist, 31 (4), 42-58.

Click Here To Order Now!