course material

1. An impoverished 69-year-old man is diagnosed with cancer of the
An impoverished 69-year-old man is diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. There is no
hope for cure, but radiation and chemotherapy, which could cost more than $150,000, may
extend his life for a few months. If this patient unambiguously requests treatment, his
doctors may struggle with the decision but will probably provide the treatment, ignoring
the cost as a matter of principle.On the other hand, a health department — or a hospital —
proposes an action that would prevent many cases of some forms of pancreatic cancer. It
could be offering free education on the effects of alcohol on the pancreas.In both instances,
health experts must make tough decisions that entail weighing the costs of an action against
its benefits in extending human life. Why is the value of extending human life the
determining factor in the first example and the cost of the intervention the determining
factor in the second? These two scenarios expose tangled issues of ethics, cost, and cost-
effectiveness and highlight a troubling structural bias against prevention.Many people
reject any attempt to put a dollar value on human life. From such a perspective, any
withholding of potentially life-extending interventions on the basis of their costs is
unethical. But within every organization and throughout society, limits on funding make it
impossible to pay for every conceivable intervention. That reality forces health leaders to
make painful decisions about what to pay for.In your paper:Discuss this scenario in respect
to ethics, cost and cost-effectiveness.What should a physician do in this case?If the
treatment is refused, how would you go about finding a way to obtain treatment for this
man?Length: Submit a 3-page paper.Expert Solution PreviewIntroduction:The scenario
presented raises important ethical dilemmas that healthcare providers often face. These
dilemmas arise when the costs associated with a medical intervention for a patient’s
ailment or preventative measures for the general population are weighed against the
benefits. In both instances, healthcare providers must make a difficult decision, keeping in
mind the Hippocratic Oath of “first, do no harm” and their fiduciary responsibility towards
their patients.1. Discuss this scenario in respect to ethics, cost, and cost-effectiveness.In
cases where a patient is diagnosed with an incurable ailment, healthcare providers must
weigh the benefits of interventions, both in terms of extending the patient’s life and their
quality of life, against the costs associated with the intervention. In this case, the doctors
must evaluate if the extension of the patient’s life by a few months is worth the cost of
$150,000. This ethical debate is accentuated when healthcare providers endeavor to extend
human life without regard to the patient’s quality of life or the financial implications for the
patient.While the first scenario involves the treatment of an individual patient, the second

2. scenario is about preventing the onset of a disease in multiple individuals. The healthcare
providers must evaluate if an investment in preventative measures, such as offering free
education on the effects of alcohol on the pancreas, would be more beneficial than the
treatment of an individual. An investment in preventative measures is often seen to be cost-
effective in the long run, with significantly reduced costs later, as individuals are able to
avoid the disease altogether.2. What should a physician do in this case?The physician must
prioritize the best interest of the patient while keeping in mind the cost-benefit analysis of
the intervention. In this case, they must have a transparent conversation with the patient
about the costs of the intervention versus its benefits. The physician should also inform the
patient about alternative treatments that may be more cost-effective and inquire if the
patient has any financial constraints. Physicians must keep in mind that they have a
fiduciary responsibility to their patients to provide the best possible care, but the
implementation of this responsibility may be limited owing to the financial constraints that
exist within the healthcare system.3. If the treatment is refused, how would you go about
finding a way to obtain treatment for this man?If the patient refuses treatment, the
physician must respect their decision, but they must also inform the patient that they are
willing to explore other treatment options that might be more cost-effective. The physician
should discuss the patient’s medical history, if any, and determine if they qualify for any
clinical trials or research studies. The physician should also attempt to verify if there are
any financial resources available to the patient, such as community or government
programs that may cover a portion of the treatment cost. If all else fails, the physician
should provide the patient with a referral to a financial counselor who can provide advice
on how to pay for medical treatment.Conclusion:As healthcare providers, our foremost
responsibility is to provide the best care possible to our patients. While cost and cost-
effectiveness should not be the sole factors in treatment decisions, they should be
considered as contributing factors. In the cases where the cost of medical intervention is too
high for an individual patient, healthcare providers must seek alternative treatments and
financial resources that may be available. In the long term, preventative measures, such as
increased education on ongoing health risks, may be more cost-effective than the treatment
of patients after they fall ill.#impoverished #69yearold #man #diagnosed #cancer