Midterm Paper
October 26, 2011
Phil 383/ Dr. A. Silvers
Midterm Paper When considering the moral issues of both cases of Roosevelt Dawson and the ten hour old baby, there are a few concerns that should be reflected upon. In Dawson’s case, he has lived for twenty-one years and the use of his limbs has been dramatically taken from him. His quality of life can be seen as a moral issue because he would have to relearn how to function without limbs. This could take place outside of the hospital setting and in an assisted living home, which would more than likely be frustrating. He would have to endure the stares and the stories of his paralyzed limbs. The moral issue of discharging Dawson from the hospital should be considered because he is suspected of leaving and committing assisted suicide due to his quadriplegic condition. In the case of the baby, the moral issue is also of quality of life. The mother has decided to not have the surgery performed and have nutrients taken away from her child. The baby has lived for less than ten hours and obviously cannot yet make a decision for herself. If the surgery was to be performed and the baby fully recovered, the quality of life would still come into play. Because she does not know how it is to live with working limbs, she would be able to cope and learn how to function better than in Dawson’s case. Although she would be would most likely cope better without limbs, the question arises of ‘what would she be able to do on her own?’ She would need someone to be with her at all times: to feed her, bath her, go to the restroom with her, dress her, and all other everyday tasks. Thus, the quality of life in this child should be considered when deciding if she should have the surgery to remove the anomalies or not.
Previously, the Metropolitan Hospital board had agreed to refrain from providing breathing assistance and/or nourishment for people who have so stated their wishes. Thus, in this case of Roosevelt Dawson, he has previously
Phil 383/ Dr. A. Silvers
Midterm Paper When considering the moral issues of both cases of Roosevelt Dawson and the ten hour old baby, there are a few concerns that should be reflected upon. In Dawson’s case, he has lived for twenty-one years and the use of his limbs has been dramatically taken from him. His quality of life can be seen as a moral issue because he would have to relearn how to function without limbs. This could take place outside of the hospital setting and in an assisted living home, which would more than likely be frustrating. He would have to endure the stares and the stories of his paralyzed limbs. The moral issue of discharging Dawson from the hospital should be considered because he is suspected of leaving and committing assisted suicide due to his quadriplegic condition. In the case of the baby, the moral issue is also of quality of life. The mother has decided to not have the surgery performed and have nutrients taken away from her child. The baby has lived for less than ten hours and obviously cannot yet make a decision for herself. If the surgery was to be performed and the baby fully recovered, the quality of life would still come into play. Because she does not know how it is to live with working limbs, she would be able to cope and learn how to function better than in Dawson’s case. Although she would be would most likely cope better without limbs, the question arises of ‘what would she be able to do on her own?’ She would need someone to be with her at all times: to feed her, bath her, go to the restroom with her, dress her, and all other everyday tasks. Thus, the quality of life in this child should be considered when deciding if she should have the surgery to remove the anomalies or not.
Previously, the Metropolitan Hospital board had agreed to refrain from providing breathing assistance and/or nourishment for people who have so stated their wishes. Thus, in this case of Roosevelt Dawson, he has previously