Question

How would someone respond to this question using the ethical principles of: a rule utilitarian Scenario #3 On April 8th, 1984, William Bartling was admitted to the Glendale Adventist Medical Center in Los Angeles. He was twenty-seven years old and suffered from five ordinarily fatal diseases: emphysema, diffuse arteriosclerosis, coronary arteriosclerosis, an abdominal aneurysm, and inoperable lung cancer. During the performance of a biopsy to diagnose the lung cancer, Mr. Bartling?s left lung collapsed. He was placed in ICU, and a chest tube and mechanical respirator were used to assist his breathing. Mr. Bartling complained about the pain the respirator caused him, and he repeatedly asked to have it removed. When his physician refused, he pulled out the chest tube himself. This happened so often that eventually Mr. Bartling?s hands were tied to the bed to keep him from doing it. He had signed a living will in attempt to avoid such a situation. Although after discussions with Richard Scott, Mr. Bartling?s attorney, Mr. Bartling?s physician in the hospital administration agreed to disconnect the respirator, the hospital?s attorney refused to permit it. He argued that, since Mr. Bartling was not terminally ill, brain dead, or in a persistent vegetative state, the hospital might be open to legal action. Mr. Scott took the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. He argued that Mr. Bartling was legally competent to make a decision about his welfare and that, although he did not want to die, he understood that disconnecting the respirator might lead to his death. The hospital?s attorney took the position that Mr. Bartling was ambivalent on the question of his death. His statements ?I don?t want to die? and ?I don?t want to live on the respirator? were taken as inconsistent and so as evidence of ambivalence. Removing the respirator, the attorney argued, would be tantamount to aiding suicide or even committing homicide. The court refused to either allow the respirator to be removed or to order that Mr. Bartling?s hands be freed. To do so, the court ruled, would be to take a positive step to end treatment, and the only precedents for doing os were in cases in which the patients were comatose, brain dead, or in a chronic state of vegetative state. The case was then taken to the California court of Appeal, which ruled: ?If the right of a patient to self-determination as to his own medical treatment is to have any meaning at all, it must be paramount to the right of a competent adult patient to refuse medical treatment is a constitutionally guaranteed right which must not be abridged.? The rule came too late for Mr. Bartling. He died twenty-three hours before the court heard his appeal. ********************************************** William Bartling is 70 years old. He has five ordinarily fatal diseases. During an operation his lung collapsed and he was placed on a respirator. He did not want hte respirator tubing in him and pulled it out repeatedly and was restrained from doing so. He had filled out a living will stating that he did not want the exact treatment he was receiving. The hospital argued that removing him from the respirator commiting homicide or assisting in a suicide? How would someone respond to this question using the ethical principles of: a rule utilitarian

Answer 1

Solution.

Rule utilitarian principles focuses on maximum utility or maximum pleasure for a great number of people's. So here the patient is suffering from 5 fatal disease including lung cancer. The patient is 70 yrs old also. So the patient is not willing for maintain chest tube also. But the patient restrained. Here patient don't want to continue such like treatments because of greatest pain. But the hospital staffs opposite this situation, and they are not willing to stop that treatment. They states, stopping of treatment will same like homicide or assisting for suicide.

But in this case according to rule utilitarian, the patient need should satisfy. Because already he is oldvage and suffering from pain due to many diseases. So in his last time, his happiness is important. Because this theory focuses on happiness.

comparing to patient's happiness in that stage, hospital rules have less importance.