Question

William Bartling is 70 years old. He has five ordinarily fatal diseases. During an operation his lung collapsed and he was placed on a respirator. He did not want hte respirator tubing in him and pulled it out repeatedly and was restrained from doing so. He had filled out a living will stating that he did not want the exact treatment he was receiving. The hospital argued that removing him from the respirator commiting homicide or assisting in a suicide? How would someone respond to this question using the ethical principles of: rule utilitarian

Steps for presenting an ethical argument or a defense of a moral judgment using ethical dialectic

1. Position on the moral issues or dilemma made clear

2. Position defended using

a. reasoning in support of the judgment (conclusion of the moral argument)

b. Ethical Principles employed in the argument

c. Values used to select the ethical principles used in defense of the conclusion (judgment)

3. Consideration of alternative positions and the rejection of those alternatives in favor of the judgment made for the reasons given which employ ethical principles and values.

Answer 1

The given case is a complex situation. It requires detailed analysis before reaching to any conclusion. We will have to understand the main thinking behind the patient's decision of taking medical assistance. We will have to consider his capability of bearing pain.

We will have to consider the economical condition of patient also. If the family members of patients are not so rich and his daily treatment is causing extreme burden on their family members, then this factor should also be considered with seriousness.

If a person is critically ill and death is the only surety then definition of ethics changes. It is completely unethical to take someone's life. It should not be done. Now think about the family members who are suffering from extreme financial crunch for a purpose in which the failure or the death is the only truth.

It may harm future of younger generation of that family. It will destroy the hope of a bright future for them due to lack of money. Daily suffering of patient with critical illness is also another factor. Bearing pain for a fixed death where medical science can not do much more, can not be taken as ethical action.

In such cases we are becoming responsible for pain of a living person. If governmental help is approaching in case of financial crunch then the definition of ethics will change. Decision should be made on grounds which should not harm somebody other's life.

None should be felt like sufferer. Taking life may be unethical but Euthanasia in genuine cases are considered ethical. This is the reason that it is a legally justified practice in many countries. Definition of ethics may change according to the situation. Detailed thought process and complete analysis of situation is must before denoting any action ethical or non-ethical.