In the NPR article, “A Mother’s Death Tested Reporter’s Thinking about End-of-Life Care”, Charles Ornstein writes about his family’s decisions during his mother’s end-of-life care. The NPR article details the decision that the Ornstein family made in the course of Harriet Ornstein’s end-of-life care to discontinue “aggressive care” and remove a ventilator that prolonged Harriet’s life (Ornstein). In this essay, we argue that the final decision made by the Ornstein family to remove the ventilator was morally permissible, justified by specific principles of deontological ethics and social consequentialist ethics.
First, one may acknowledge that in evaluating the Ornsteins’ actions, we are dealing with conflicting ideas about benefits and harms …show more content…
In medicine, multiple goals for patient outcomes exist including “preventing death,…cur[ing] disease, reliev[ing] suffering, and promot[ing] the well-being of the patient” (Veatch 53). Someone might argue that by choosing to remove the ventilator, the family may have attempted to meet another medical goal, that of a duty to relieve suffering. However, this argument does not appear to be substantive because it is ambiguous if the patient felt any sense of suffering. Therefore, it is difficult to accept this as a valid argument. Instead, the most exonerating principle that one can consider in deontological ethics looks beyond the duty of meeting medical goals and understanding the overall reason for having such outcomes. This greater reason is a desire to respect patients; in order do so, one must respect the autonomy of the patients. As Charles Ornstein states, his mother’s direct wishes were that “she didn’t want to be artificially kept alive if she had no real chance of a meaningful recovery”. Charles Ornstein first respects his mother’s wishes by undergoing a thorough process of examining whether meaningful recovery was possible. He seeks out multiple views, references medical literature, and also decides, …show more content…
In deontological ethics, we are debating between a duty to avoid harm and a duty to respect autonomy. In consequentialist ethics, we consider individual consequences against larger societal consequences. In the Basics of Bioethics, Veatch describes that there has been a movement away from “maximizing good consequences for the patient” and looking at principles based on duty. Perhaps, among those duties are the duty to respect autonomy (59); if so, this story may be considered an example of that
First, one may acknowledge that in evaluating the Ornsteins’ actions, we are dealing with conflicting ideas about benefits and harms …show more content…
In medicine, multiple goals for patient outcomes exist including “preventing death,…cur[ing] disease, reliev[ing] suffering, and promot[ing] the well-being of the patient” (Veatch 53). Someone might argue that by choosing to remove the ventilator, the family may have attempted to meet another medical goal, that of a duty to relieve suffering. However, this argument does not appear to be substantive because it is ambiguous if the patient felt any sense of suffering. Therefore, it is difficult to accept this as a valid argument. Instead, the most exonerating principle that one can consider in deontological ethics looks beyond the duty of meeting medical goals and understanding the overall reason for having such outcomes. This greater reason is a desire to respect patients; in order do so, one must respect the autonomy of the patients. As Charles Ornstein states, his mother’s direct wishes were that “she didn’t want to be artificially kept alive if she had no real chance of a meaningful recovery”. Charles Ornstein first respects his mother’s wishes by undergoing a thorough process of examining whether meaningful recovery was possible. He seeks out multiple views, references medical literature, and also decides, …show more content…
In deontological ethics, we are debating between a duty to avoid harm and a duty to respect autonomy. In consequentialist ethics, we consider individual consequences against larger societal consequences. In the Basics of Bioethics, Veatch describes that there has been a movement away from “maximizing good consequences for the patient” and looking at principles based on duty. Perhaps, among those duties are the duty to respect autonomy (59); if so, this story may be considered an example of that