Brookstone Hospice is a company that helps terminally ill individuals to die on their own terms. Brookstone says that they help their customers to die with as little pain and as much dignity as possible. The case we’re reading deals with a particular occasion, on which a Ms. Kathy Bennett violated company policy to save a man’s life. This is an interesting dilemma because not only did she violate company policy, but she violated the company’s mission statement as well. She undermined the very thing they do. How can you make a living letting patients die if you continue to let them live? This very question is the bitter epicenter of this case, and will serve as our focal point. Ms. Bennett is a liaison of Brookstone to a Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner was in the latter stages of his illness, and was certain to experience at least some pain and internal bleeding. One night, Mr. Gardner’s daughter called Brookstone, clearly distressed, begging for an ambulance for him. He was internally bleeding profusely - much more than that for which they had been prepared. He was dying. The family was distraught and panicking while Ms. Bennett was dealing with company policies and taking the normal course of action needed to have a Brookstone client brought to a hospital by ambulance. Sensing the increasing tension and dire need for the ambulance, Ms. Bennett approved the use of an ambulance and emergency medical treatment at the nearest hospital. The nearest hospital was Covington General, which had a Brookstone Hospice Inpatient Unit. By approving these actions without going through the proper channels, Ms. Bennett violated several company policies. She also saved Mr. Gardner’s life. Therein lies the problem. Kathy Bennett saves a man’s life by breaking a few rules. Unfortunately, in doing so, she goes against what Brookstone stands for. Brookstone doesn’t save lives, it makes passing from life to death more bearable for the sick and elderly and their families. Death is never pretty, nor is it easy. No matter how much anyone tries to lessen the blow, the death of a loved one is always difficult thing to deal with. Brookstone’s main purpose is to minimize the pain and suffering for all those involved in the ordeal – not to postpone the event for as long as possible. The problem with this case is that the area in which Brookstone deals is a touchy one. The ethical ramifications of the matter are nearly endless, but it is necessary to say that it is harder to tell which situation is less ethical – the one in which Brookstone simply allows a person to die when they have the means to save him, or the situation in which Brookstone postpones an imminent death. In the former, we want to save the fellow human, in the latter, we want the company not to take advantage of the situation and perhaps make even more money than they would have otherwise, simply because the patient would be living longer in their care. Which is the better alternative? It is a tough decision, but we have to remember that the people who have signed on with Brookstone understand that they are going to die, and simply want to go quietly, comfortably, and with dignity. I don’t think they should have fired Ms. Bennett. I think that the policies that are in place should have allowed for something like this to have happened. The patient was obviously in immense pain, and was going to die that evening if nothing had been done to help him. Since part of Brookstone’s precept is to minimize pain, it seems almost obvious that they should have taken care of this man’s condition. Brookstone should have paid for the surgery to begin with. Though the surgery was “curative”, it certainly lessened Mr. Gardner’s pain. The company should realize that, between the two choices, the one with the intensive medical attention is the better course to take. That being said, we have to realize that Brookstone’s mission is to care for a person in their final 6 months of life. To continually afford them life-saving surgery seems to either make their job drag on, or to contradict it entirely. For this reason, a difficult decision will always need to be made. Each individual client should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There should be someone with the authority to allow medical treatment if it is necessary to lessen pain. To streamline the channels of communication between employees and to give more power and responsibility to those employees is a must for Brookstone to succeed. |
||||