Peter. a 32 twelvemonth old. suffered hideous hurts as the consequence of the prostration of a span over which he was driving his auto. He has been classified as being in a relentless vegetive province for the past five old ages.
Although Peter’s encephalon root is still working. his bosom is crushing and he can take a breath spontaneously. he is dependent on unwritten eating for the continuance of his life. The physicians in charge of his instance have come to the determination that Peter’s life is no longer of value to him and hold requested that they be allowed to retreat his nutrient supply. It is legal for physicians to retreat medical support. nevertheless. feeding a patient is regarded as portion of alleviative attention and non a medical intervention. Peter’s parents have taken the instance to tribunal in order to forestall his physicians from retreating his eating tubings. What determination would you rede the Judgess to do in this instance?
The argument over whether to retreat Peter’s nutrient supply in the above instance arises from the conflicting values of his parents and his physicians. Peter’s position is cardinal to measuring the instance ; the backdown of his eating tubings violates his right to life. The restraint of Peter’s function is that being in a relentless vegetive province. he is unable to exert his liberty and bespeak what value he believes should be placed on his life.
As Peter is unable to show his opinion. and we don’t cognize if he has expressed an sentiment prior to this event. his parents take on the function of stand foring his involvements. His parents are required to utilize their cognition of Peter’s values to make up one’s mind his best interests1. Their determination that Peter’s life should be prolonged can be argued for utilizing Utilitarianism. Deontology. and virtue moralss.
In a general sense. Utilitarianism
prevents the stoping of human life if so making fails to optimize the goods the place holds to be valuable. If one takes Peter’s loved 1s to be the applicable society. and the valued goods to be continuance of hope. or bar of heartache. so such a moral Brock. Dan W. . ‘Life-Sustaining Treatment and Euthanasia: Ethical Aspects’ . in Stephen G. Post ( ed. ) . Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3rd erectile dysfunction. ( New York: Macmillan Reference. 2004 ) . Vol. 3. p. 1412 theory would forbid the backdown of his eating tubings. In footings of Aristotelean moralss. the finding to prolong Peter’s life entails virtuousnesss of bravery. trueness and lovingness. therefore this moral theory can back up his parents’ determination.
Morality as right Acts of the Apostless and purposes can besides back up this determination. Deontology leads to a cardinal moral responsibility non to intentionally stop an guiltless human’s life. a responsibility to esteem the intrinsic value of human life. This responsibility follows from Kant’s practical jussive mood that worlds must ever be treated as agencies in themselves. ne’er as terminals entirely. The intrinsic value of human life is besides supported by the construct that a right to life is the foundation of all other rights. Rights and responsibilities are complementary within deontology as our being duteous upholds the rights of others. and our rights consequence from others’ public presentation of their responsibility. Worlds have a right non to be killed. as so making denies them their hereafter. Peter’s parents’ determination upholds their responsibility to esteem the intrinsic value of human life. and upholds Peter’s right non to be killed. The stance the Peter’s parents take can be defended by all of the moral theories outlined. particularly if we know that Peter is non in hurting.
The place that Peter’s physicians have taken on can besides be argued for through all of these moral theories. His physicians are able to pull on their experience every bit good as their cognition and preparation to measure Peter’s instance. Their position is in maintaining with Aristotelean moralss as the virtuousnesss of opinion and firmness are employed. Importantly. his physicians use phronesis. practical wisdom. which is a cardinal value in Aristotle’s account2. The position of Peter’s physicians may be related to deontology in that it involves a sense of responsibility. universalisabilty. However. Deontology is a much more effectual model for back uping Euthanasia when consent is given by the patient. as the individual’s right non to be killed could so be understood as waived.
In a teleological model. Euthanasia can be defended as it brings an terminal to the hurting and agony of the patient. which is certainly a meaningful effect. It is Jonsen. Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin. ‘Theory and Practice’ . in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning ( Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988 ) . pp. 23-45.
Brock. Dan W. . ‘Life-Sustaining Treatment and Euthanasia: Ethical Aspects’ . in Stephen G. Post ( ed. ) . Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3rd erectile dysfunction. ( New York: Macmillan Reference. 2004 ) . ill-defined in Peter’s instance whether or non he feels hurting. and possibly it is non possible to determine what person in a relentless vegetive province is cognizant of. Utilitarianism demands Euthanasia in instances where it would bring forth the greatest balance of benefits over injuries. It is wholly plausible for this to be the instance with Peter. The stoping of his life would liberate up resources which could be of benefit for other patients. He may be used as an organ giver which would once more profit other patients. The stoping of his life may even finally profit his parents. since by being forced to allow travel they will be forced to face their heartache. If these effects hold as optimum. Peter’s doctors’ determination is supported by Utilitarianism.
The best possible ethical response to Peter’s instance depends on what values are given most weight. which moral theory is accepted. His parents’ place is supported most strongly by deontology. whereas his doctors’ determination is more in maintaining with Aristotelean moralss.
The moral model I found most convincing is that proposed by Carol Gilligan whereby a attention perspective exists in add-on to the traditional justness position. The cardinal concerns of an moral principle of attention are sensitiveness to others demands. duty for taking attention. and keeping relationships. From a attention position. relationships are organized in footings of fond regard. as a web or web. whereas from a justness perspective relationships are organized in a hierarchy in order to look at equality. In a attention perspective the relationship is the figure. the moral agent. whereas in a justness position the ego is the moral agent who Judgess conflicting claims against a criterion of equality4. The ultimate terminal of the attention ethic is keeping relationships.
The terminal of the justness theoretical account is personal autonomy. Gilligan proposes that one can see a moral job from one position ab initio. but when guided position it from the other position. nevertheless persons by and large have a preferable or dominant manner of sing a moral quandary. Gilligan emphasizes that attention and justness positions are non polar antonyms. or mirror images. they are different ways of looking at the basic elements of moral judgement. The fact that they are non polar antonyms. with one position a better or worse manner of go throughing moral judgement is. harmonizing to Gilligan. what makes seeing both positions so hard. the footings of one position do non specify the footings of the other.
Gilligan’s theory is appropriate to see here for two grounds. First the other moral theories have been criticised within the Euthanasia argument for being excessively calculating. inadequate to show the complexnesss involved in terminal of life determinations. Second. the attention position contains of import penetrations for this instance as finally it seems less about Peter’s concerns in and of themselves. than it is an issue about Peter’s parents. and their connection with their son’s organic structure. An moral principle of attention can account for this in manner that other moral theories can’t. Through this theory it would look morally incorrect to forcefully take Peter from his parents. yet it besides seems unethical to let his parents to specify the balance of their lives around the motionless signifier that remains of their boy.
The best possible ethical response to this instance is non to stop Peter’s life against the will of his parents. nor is it to go forth him dependent on a eating tubing indefinitely. Ideally a state of affairs would be created where his parents made the determination to stop Peter’s life. I would rede the justice to urge reding for his parents. to enable them to turn to their heartache. and come to a topographic point where they are able to allow travel of Peter’s physical signifier. When this occurs. the greatest balance of benefits over injuries would clearly be to stop Peter’s life. so this result would be demanded by utilitarianism. Peter’s physicians and parents would be showing virtuousnesss of opinion. firmness. bravery and lovingness. Their determination would be reached through phronesis. and therefore supported by Aristotelean ethics5. His parents’ consent would relinquish Peter’s right non to be killed. and therefore the stoping of his life would non be in crisp contrast with the values of deontology. Peter’s parents’ relationship with his memory would be preserved. so accomplishing the ultimate terminal of an moral principle of attention. This determination would therefore fulfill the conditions of each moral theory examined. The ethical response I have given depends on the premise that Peter’s life is no longer of intrinsic value to him. as claimed by his physicians. If it was known that Peter was cognizant of hurting. so I would organize an statement for stoping his life regardless of his parents consent. If it could be shown that Peter was cognizant of what was traveling on around him. but was non in hurting. this would once more change my determination. The deductions of being cognizant but unable to react would necessitate to be considered.
The other peculiar given in the instance. which ab initio seems to distinguish it from a general argument about mercy killing of unqualified patients. is that Peter is having alleviative attention instead than medical intervention. This affects whether his intervention is understood as ordinary or extraordinary. but this differentiation doesn’t seem to impact whether the continuance or backdown of attention is morally obligatory.
The determination I have advised in this instance seems to be the best possible ethical response. but it is unknown whether it would be successful in pattern. The response assumes that Peter’s parents are inexorable that his alleviative attention continues because they feel connected to their boy by his physical presence. and are enabled by the continuance of his life to further hope. It is possible that his parents object to stoping his life for other grounds. such as spiritual beliefs. If this were the instance I still believe a strong effort to convert Peter’s parents to accept must predate the nonvoluntary stoping of Peter’s life if such an action is to be ethically defendable.
Aristotle. choices from Nicomachean Ethical motives. in The Ethical motives of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. trans. J. A. K. Thomson. rpm. Hugh Tredennick ( Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1976 )
Brock. Dan W. . ‘Life-Sustaining Treatment and Euthanasia: Ethical Aspects’ . in Stephen G. Post ( ed. ) . Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 3rd erectile dysfunction. ( New York: Macmillan Reference. 2004 ) . Vol. 3. pp. 1410-20.
Doerflinger. Richard ‘Assisted Suicide: Pro-choice or Anti-life ( Mercy. Murder & A ; Morality: Positions on Euthanasia ) ’ . The Hastings Center Report. Vol. 19. No. 1. 1989.
Gilligan. Carol. ‘Moral Orientation and Moral Development’ . in Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers. explosive detection systems. Womans and Moral Theory ( Totowa. New jersey: Rowman & A ; Littlefield. 1987 ) . pp. 19-32
Hinman. Lawrence M. ‘A Pluralistic Approach to Contemporary Moral Issues’ . in Contemporary Moral Issues: Diverseness and Consensus. 3rd erectile dysfunction. ( Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Person/Prentice Hall. 2006 ) . pp. xiii-xxiii.
Jonsen. Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin. ‘Theory and Practice’ . in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning ( Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988 ) . pp. 23-45.
Norden. Margaret ‘”Whose Life is it Anyway? ” A Study in Respect for Autonomy’ . Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 21. 1995. 179-83.
Walker. Margaret Urban. ‘What does the Different Voice Say? Gilligan’s Women and Moral Philosophy’ . in Moral Contexts ( Lanham. Mendelevium: Rowman & A ; Littlefield. 2003. pp. 57-69 )