Ethics In Practice Case Study
Ethics in Practice – Case Study Analysis
Isobel Stevenson
Peter, a 32 year old, suffered horrific injuries as the result of the collapse of a bridge over which he was driving his car. He has been classified as being in a persistent vegetative state for the past five years.
Although Peter’s brain stem is still
functioning, his heart is beating and he can breathe spontaneously, he is dependent on oral feeding for the continuation of his life. The doctors in charge of his case have come to the decision that Peter’s life is no longer of value to him and have requested that they be allowed to withdraw his food supply. It is legal for doctors to withdraw medical support, however, feeding a patient is regarded as part of palliative …show more content…
Importantly, his doctors use phronesis, practical wisdom, which is a central value in
Aristotle’s account2. The perspective of Peter’s doctors may be related to deontology in that it involves a sense of duty, universalisabilty. However, Deontology is a much more effective framework for supporting Euthanasia when consent is given by the patient, as the individual’s right not to be killed could then be understood as waived3.
In a teleological framework, Euthanasia can be defended as it brings an end to the pain and suffering of the patient, which is surely a meaningful consequence. It is
2
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.
3
Brock, Dan W., ‘Life-Sustaining Treatment and Euthanasia: Ethical Aspects’, in
Stephen G. Post (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan
Reference, 2004), Vol. 3, p. 1413
2
unclear in Peter’s case whether or not he feels pain, and perhaps it is not possible to ascertain what someone in a persistent vegetative state is aware of.
Isobel Stevenson
Peter, a 32 year old, suffered horrific injuries as the result of the collapse of a bridge over which he was driving his car. He has been classified as being in a persistent vegetative state for the past five years.
Although Peter’s brain stem is still
functioning, his heart is beating and he can breathe spontaneously, he is dependent on oral feeding for the continuation of his life. The doctors in charge of his case have come to the decision that Peter’s life is no longer of value to him and have requested that they be allowed to withdraw his food supply. It is legal for doctors to withdraw medical support, however, feeding a patient is regarded as part of palliative …show more content…
Importantly, his doctors use phronesis, practical wisdom, which is a central value in
Aristotle’s account2. The perspective of Peter’s doctors may be related to deontology in that it involves a sense of duty, universalisabilty. However, Deontology is a much more effective framework for supporting Euthanasia when consent is given by the patient, as the individual’s right not to be killed could then be understood as waived3.
In a teleological framework, Euthanasia can be defended as it brings an end to the pain and suffering of the patient, which is surely a meaningful consequence. It is
2
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.
3
Brock, Dan W., ‘Life-Sustaining Treatment and Euthanasia: Ethical Aspects’, in
Stephen G. Post (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan
Reference, 2004), Vol. 3, p. 1413
2
unclear in Peter’s case whether or not he feels pain, and perhaps it is not possible to ascertain what someone in a persistent vegetative state is aware of.