Can Anyone Help Me with My Bioethics Case? -

The scenario: there s a 64-yrs old guy who had had a stroke, affecting his mental condition. He also has diabetes mellitus and hypertension. One day, there s a progressive gangrene in his leg, which means it must be amputated. His family agreed, but the patient didn t. So, the doctor said to the family that he ll amputate if the patient falls into a coma, when the consent is up to the family. One day, the patient went into a coma and the consent was signed by the family. The amputation was done. The patient originally felt happy, but was outraged when he realized his leg had been amputated. He would prosecute the doctor and the patient s family for violating his right/autonomy. So, can anyone discuss the ethical dilemma between saving his life vs his autonomy, according to the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and autonomy. I want to collect various point of views from all of you. Thank you...

he is in the right because the doctor deliberately went around the patients wishes. If he could prove that the patients mental condition was effected enough he could have requested a rights officer to get the family to take power of attorney and give the consent to the leg amputation. but because the doctor did it without obviously following a procedure already set in place for these types of situations (example a person with MR usually isnt capable of making that choice) the doctor is now liable as well as the family. Should he get money... yes and no.