Mr. and Mrs. Lovebird were approaching their 65th wedding anniversary when it was discovered that Mr. Lovebird was battling Stage IV lung cancer, with metastasis to his colon. Vowing to "Fight this thing!" the Lovebirds sought out the best specialists and Mr. Lovebird underwent two surgeries, chemotherapy and several rounds of radiation. Mr. Lovebird did quite well for a while, but lately he has experienced severe fatigue and discomfort. He has also lost his appetite, resulting in a 15lb weight loss in just two months. Concerned, the Lovebirds went to see Dr. Friendly, their primary care physician for over 30 years, whom they trust implicitly. Knowing that the Lovebirds are in denial to some extent, but also believing that medicine is an inexact science, Dr. Friendly told them both about an experimental treatment option that might be worth "checking into," even though the chances were slim that it would provide much benefit.

At a dinner party for a mutual acquaintance, Dr. Friendly is approached by Lancelot, the Lovebird's only child. Dr. Friendly is aware of the close relationship between Lancelot and the Lovebirds, so he is concerned for their welfare when Lancelot approaches him. Once alone, Lancelot appears upset and tells Dr. Friendly that he is concerned about the experimental treatment option Dr. Friendly mentioned to the Lovebirds, given Mr. Lovebird's fatigue and weight loss. From Lancelot's perspective, it is obvious that even if successful, it would only buy Mr. Lovebird a few months and those months may not be very good ones. He is also concerned that Mr. Lovebird is tired of treatments, but goes along to please Mrs. Lovebird. Dr. Friendly smiles and shakes his head "Your mother has always been a force to be reckoned with," he says "But, in reality, a few months is better than no months!" He also assures Lancelot that if the Oncologist does not think Mr. Lovebird is a good candidate for the procedure, the Oncologist will tell them so.

When Lancelot suggests that Dr. Friendly's professional judgment may be colored by the Lovebird's denial, Dr. Friendly becomes defensive, stating that as their doctor all he can do is provide them with information and statistics on the disease prognosis and the benefits and risks of any potential options. He admonishes Lancelot, stating "if your parents want to believe in miracles, I am not going to take that away from them, and you shouldn't either!"

Visibly upset, Lancelot insists that Dr. Friendly discuss the Hospice option with the Lovebirds, preferably with Mr. Lovebird, first. Although Dr. Friendly is concerned that the idea of Hospice could be more lethal to the Lovebirds than any experimental treatment, he agrees, on the condition that Lancelot raise it with the Lovebirds first. "If your parents seem open to the conversation, give me a call or have them call me, and I will sit down with them to discuss the options."

The next day, Lancelot goes to see Mr. and Mrs. Lovebird, and shares his conversation with Dr. Friendly, telling them that both he and Dr. Friendly agree that it may be time for Hospice services. Both the Lovebirds become very angry that he was discussing them with Dr. Friendly without them knowing it. They are also devastated that Dr. Friendly would conspire with Lancelot to force a decision on them that is clearly premature. When he leaves, Mrs. Lovebird calls Dr. Friendly and tells him that she is furious with his breach of confidentiality and that he should stick to family practice, as he is not an oncology expert.

Please respond to the following questions (approx. 350-500 words) using the template format provided for the assignment:

Given Dr. Friendly's longstanding relationship with the Lovebirds, his insight into their processing and coping mechanisms, and the close family relationship he has witnessed between the Lovebirds and their son, did Dr. Friendly's breach his professional responsibility to Mr. and

Mrs. Lovebird by suggesting that Lancelot discuss the Hospice option with the Lovebirds first?

Describe the most relevant ethical dilemma(s) presented (no more than two).

Briefly describe the primary issue or issues that are relevant in the scenario with respect to the dilemma.

Identify the most relevant stakeholders (no more than 3) and briefly describe the situation from their perspective.

Analyze the dilemma, using scholarly discussion, from the perspective of the primary stakeholder (typically the patient). Include a discussion of at least two ethical theories or bioethics principles studied in the course that relate to the dilemma and issues you identified. Include any relevant legal concerns or requirements outlined in the readings.

Present your assessment, resolution or potential solutions for resolving the issue. Remember that there are no right answers, per se, so reflective questions can be as appropriate as a firm conclusion.