Ethics In Removing Life Support Essay

Substitute Judgment is often used by doctors when patient can no longer decide for herself/himself, the doctors will then result to the immediate family member. Technology of science somehow created a life support for patient under irreversibly comatose or in persistent vegetative that has a very low possibility to live. However, physicians, medical personnel, nurses, and related family of patient with similar case has always have an ethical dilemma on removing the life support. During the 1980’s such removal of life support are always rejected by the court. Just like the case of Clarence Herbert during 1983 the doctors removed the life support of Herbert and was accused of malpractice in surgery and murder by court. Similarly, Nancy Jobes under gastronomy tube has been unconscious since 1980, the family suggest to remove the life support. The court this time supported the decision since the patient has been under persistent …show more content…
Theories of normative ethics can be used as a basis in dealing an ethical dilemma such as whether removing a life support is an ethical doing or unethical. Action theory are principles that make actions morally right, for the part of Mrs. And Mr. Corbett she would no longer suffer from the illness and die peacefully. The Value theory answers if the consequences are good or valuable, on the Corbett’s case the consequence is Mrs. Corbett will die when no life support is used. Lastly in Normative Ethics is the Virtue theory, the difference between the benevolence and beneficence. The benevolence in the case is having a life support so that the patient will live, the beneficence though with very similar meaning--it can be Mr. Corbett will not require life support for his wife because to lessen the burden to his wife or to require a life support to continue the life of his wife. Nevertheless, Mr. Corbett sided with his wife that a life support is no longer