Framing
The case is focused on Terri Schiavo, a woman that stays in a vegetative state as a result of a heart attack. Health care professionals suggest that she is not aware of anything that is going on, the quality of her life is incredibly small, and recovery is not expected.
Her husband is a surrogate, and he has a disagreement with her parents. The financial burden is enormous, and the psychological impact of this situation is also significant. The decision that is being discussed is whether it is ethical to discontinue life support or not.
Preliminary Phase
The first possible option is to stop life support because health care professionals have stated that recovery is not likely. This reason is vital because many individuals think that individuals should have the right to die if their condition is extremely painful or hard to handle (Pierce 37). The problem is that resources and time of health care institutions are not efficiently used even if relatives may think otherwise. Many may believe that a close one should be able to make such decisions because it has an enormous effect on their lives. It is necessary to understand that such treatment is very expensive, and it may not be an easy task to afford it (Noonan 17). Moreover, it may seem highly unreasonable to spend such enormous funds if there is no result and a person may be considered dead (Devettere 136).
The second option is to continue life support because another approach can be viewed as a particular form of murder. This reason is important because life should not be taken away under any circumstances. It is evident that she is alive, and performs necessary body functions, but needs some support. Moreover, there have been cases of miraculous recoveries in the past, and this aspect should not be overlooked. Also, it could be entirely possible that a new technique or technology that could address this issue is discovered, and every individual that is involved would have to suffer because of a decision to discontinue life support.
All-Things-Considered Phase
The first reason should be prioritized in this case because it is evident that numerous complications are avoided. It is understandable that a family may not want to support such an approach, but it is the most reasonable in this case. The fact that they have to worry about a patient every single day and hope for recovery is quite problematic and has an enormous effect on their lives. This approach should be prioritized because it is beneficial in the long term.
Utilitarianism can be applied in this situation, and it can be seen the consequences of such actions would be the most beneficial for every party that is involved (West 146). Husband will no longer have to spend enormous amounts of money on treatment that would not lead to any results, and parents may have to accept the situation because they are currently in denial. It is understandable that many may oppose this approach, but logic should be preferred in this case, and it is possible to argue that such a state cannot be viewed as a living, and it is a traumatizing experience. Another aspect that should be considered is that parents are incredibly biased in this case, and their opinion would not change even if doctors provided sufficient evidence (Slote 27).
Critique
The first way in which one may disagree with this approach is that they may think that every person that shows signs of living should be treated equally, and no one has the right to take the life of another person (Harris 16). It is imperative to understand that such actions may be quite similar to murder, and they should not be supported by any ethical theory (Orentlicher 37). They may think that there is always a possibility of recovery, and it should not be overlooked even if health care professionals suggest that it is not possible. The case is complicated by the fact that she is not conscious and cannot decide if she wants to die or not.
The second perspective that needs to be mentioned is that the psychological harm that may be caused to parents can outweigh the benefits of this approach. Also, it is important to understand that they are incredibly worried about the situation, and it is entirely possible that the damage to their health can be irreversible. The possibility of depression and stress should not be overlooked, and it is an aspect that may be quite problematic most of the time.
Also, one may disagree with this approach because many may think that such a decision should not be made without the involvement of the government or trained professionals that would be able to determine if it is reasonable in this case. It is important to understand that it is not an easy situation, and it would be beneficial to evaluate the psychological state of the family. Also, it is imperative to note that the involvement of professionals may be needed because the husband may have other motives, and could want to protect his funds. Furthermore, close ones should not have to deal with such tough choices, and intervention may be needed.
Works Cited
Devettere, Raymond J. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010. Print.
Harris, John. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Noonan, Jeff. Materialist Ethics and Life-Value. Quebec, CA: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2012. Print.
Orentlicher, David. Matters of Life and Death: Making Moral Theory Work in Medical Ethics and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
Pierce, Jessica. Morality Play: Case Studies in Ethics. 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2013. Print.
Slote, Michael. The Ethics of Care and Empathy. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2007. Print.
West, Henry R. An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.