Question

Discuss whether a person should be allowed to die when they are in a persistent vegetative state and we do not know their wishes. Think about whether Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) should be allowed on a nation wide basis - why or why not? Give a little thought to the gender (male/female) and IQ - e.g. Saikewicz of the parties involved as well as whether they were in a PVS (Schiavo) or simply had a stroke (O'Connor). These things seem to make a difference.

Answer 1

When a person is in a persistent vegetative state means he/she is brain dead. If a person is brain dead the chances of getting consciousness are impossible. The patient may not gain consciousness and will not be able to breathe on his own; the person who is brain dead is legally taken as dead in many states of the US and other developed countries.

An attorney can be appointed by a person when they are in a clear state of mind to take a decision on his/her behalf in case the person is unable to make any decision the person is appointed by the court and have the POA (power of attorney) to take a decision on the patient's behalf.

Now in case, there is no POA appointed and the person is in a vegetative state, and medically announced as brain dead. If we look at the utilitarian point of view then letting the patient die is a good consequence as the patient and the immediate members who are involved in taking care of the brain dead person would be relieved. But the Kantian view would take it as an immoral act of killing a living body that is equal to murder. I think the court should take the decision looking at the broader sense. Whether killing would end his suffering but ethically and religiously it is wrong. The person is on the artificial breathing system if that system was not invented the person would have died on his own. It is better to let the person pass away peacefully.

Stankiewicz was a sixty-seven-year-old man his IQ level was ten and his cognitive ability was of a two-year-old child that means he was mentally retarded. On April 19, 1976, he was diagnosed as suffering from acute Leukemia, the only treatment was chemotherapy, that was a painful process and he was not in a condition to tolerate the painful procedure, the superintendent of the institution where he was residing took a permission from the court that he should not be proceeded with the treatment and let him die a peaceful death. On May 13, 1976, the court passed the judgment looking at his mental condition and on September 4, 1976, he died.

He was not in a vegetative state, he could feel pain, his IQ was 10 and he was a mental case. Now in this situation, the court is wrong. It should have ordered the institution to see if he can bear the pain, and there is always a possibility that he would have survived. By barring him from taking any treatment the court allows him to die, He died a peaceful and painless death because he was deprived of treatment that induces pain. But the court did not take any trail to see whether he can bear the treatment or not. The court judgment is entirely biased and absolutely wrong because it deprived a person of his fundamental rights.

Terri Schiavo, she was diagnosed as in a persistent vegetative state since 1990, She had a heart attack and subsequent major brain damage. She was diagnosed as in PVS (persistent vegetative state) she was feed through the pipe. On the court order, the feeding pipe was removed and she died. There was no legal wish or POA to take her medical decision, her husband approaches the court and the feeding tubes were removed. In her case, she was very mildly responding to the external stimuli otherwise there was no connection. She was in that state for the last seven years.

Physician-Assisted Suicide is one where the doctor assists the patient in committing suicide by writing a prescription that the patient takes at his will.

This is not a PAS it was killing of Terri Schiavo because the court had ordered it and her husband wanted it, because as per his knowledge she would have asked for the same.

She could have remained in this state for years together if she was getting her food, as she was reacting to stimuli like exhibiting pain when the feeding tube was inserted, it shows that she had the feeling of pain, she might be suffering acute discomfort but she was unable to express it. She was not on a ventilator. The seven of eight neurologists who examined her said she was in a PVS but one neurologist was not agreed. The judge had gone through the medical report he did not personally saw any evidence that whether she is 100% in PVS or not. She was exhibiting pain when the feeding tube was inserted in the food pipe. She had become the case where the politicians also involved themselves. They should have not removed the feeding pipe, her parents were there to look after but her husband's plea was heard and the feeding tubes were removed this is ethically wrong PAS it is not suicided it is killing.

Mary O'Connor was an elderly lady she had suffered several strokes and that had left her mentally unstable. She was unable to take her food or drink without any assistant it would have made her starve and die. Her daughter Helen had given a written statement that her mother had wished that she does not want to live on artificial life support if she falls sick. Her daughter objected to inserting a feeding tube for her nourishment as it was against her mother's wishes. Mrs. Connor was not in a PVS she was conscious and responding to the questions asked to her. Patients like Connor should be given the privilege of living because she was only old but conscious.