The process of making serious decisions is one of the most difficult in the life of any person. However, what should people do if they are faced with a situation where they have to make decisions for others? Especially if it concerns the continuation of another person’s life. Hence, in the place of the husband in the case under study, I would not take the side that his disabled wife, who is in the vegetative stage, should be disconnected from the feeding apparatus.
Within the framework of the case under study, the question of the sanctity of the patient’s life plays a special role. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, doctors must comply with this concept since they have a duty to the provision of care for people. At the same time, the circumstances are complicated by the fact that the prognosis for a woman is not positive, and she may receive multiple complications that will only worsen her condition. However, the intentional termination of the treatment and extraction of the feeding tube becomes a deprivation of basic care and violates the concepts of the sanctity of the patient’s life (Rigali and Lori para. 10). Consequently, treatment cannot be stopped until the condition of the human body is stable, and the procedures for providing assistance are not burdensome.
Of particular value in making decisions about the patient’s life in a vegetative state is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It can help inform the patient’s caregivers so that they can decide on a course of action. Thus, it emphasizes that other people cannot make a decision about stopping the treatment of such patients, that is, euthanasia. Therefore, they must take care of a patient who is in a disabled state and receive the necessary assistance from healthcare providers.
Work Cited
Rigali, Justin F. and William E. Lori. “Human Dignity and the End of Life: Caring for Patients in a Persistent Vegetative State.”America, 2008.