Question

John Hardwig defends the position that a person could have a duty to die (at the least by no longer trying to continue living) in certain circumstances, although he notes that he does not think it should be enforceable. His view arises largely from his rejection of the ‘individualistic fallacy’ and an implicit understanding that resources are often limited. Does this stance open the door to claiming that medical professionals may have a duty to take into account more than the patient’s best interests? Why or why not?

Answer 1

John Hardwig's view in simple terms is that a person can do as per his needs as long as he /she is happy with the decision, it is in the person's best interest.

Medical professionals have signed up for what they are expected to do, otherwise they shouldn't have opted for that profession. Often they sign up with the intention of serving patients and not for any other motive. It should be in their best interest to serve the people. Thus the above stance applies to people who are thinking about themselves and the well being. While medical professionals have a duty for the well-being of people, they can't abandon their positions just because they are given a choice. If they are faced with extraneous circumstances such as no proper means to take care of themselves, in order to serve more people than yes, they will have to take into account their priority and safety. But if they are well taken care of by the state, then their first duty should be to put patients interests first and foremost.