Question

Respirator Removal Source: Jim was an active person. He was a lawyer by profession. When he was forty- four years old, a routine physical revealed that he had a tumor on his right lung. After surgery to remove that lung, he returned to a normal life. However, four years later, a cancerous tumor was found in his other lung. He knew he had only months to live. Then came the last hospitalization. He was on a respirator. It was extremely uncomfortable for him, and he was frustrated by not being able to talk because of the tubes. After some thought, he decided that he did not want to live out his last few weeks like this and asked to have the respirator removed. Because he was no longer able to breathe on his own, he knew this meant he would die shortly after it was removed.

Did Jim or the doctors who removed the respirator and then watched Jim die as a result do anything wrong?

Why or why not? Would there be any difference between this case and that of a person such as Terri Schiavo

who was in a persistent vegetative state, was not able to express her current wishes, and had left no written request?

Answer 1

As Jim gave his consent for the removal of the respirator because of the extreme inconvenience that was caused by the life supporting machine. Jim very well knew that removal of respirator means death to him, still he wanted it to be removed as he wanted to die without much pain. This wish of Jim was respected , death for Jim was inevitable, it was made few weeks earlier at the request of Jim.. Hence, the decision of Jim was ethically right. There was no ethical dilemma in this case,as the patient himself with much thought decided not to use life supporting system even it meant death to be him.

Case of Terri Schiavo was different because she was in vegetative state and could not express her consent about her life. The important aspect was that there was a difference of opinion between her parents and her husband regarding the decision of her life and death. This difference created the dilemma and controversy regarding right to life in her case.