Advances in medicine and technology have allowed physicians the ability to prolong and sustain life but there are certain moral implications present in cases where the patient has either a terminal illness or is in a pertinent vegetative state (PVS). Withholding or withdrawing treatment is a major ethical dilemma for an incompetent individual’s family and healthcare providers. Most people have not completed an advance directive or much less have appointed a healthcare power of attorney who can also make decisions regarding medical treatment in the event that the individual becomes unable to make those decisions for themselves. Having advance directives can help alleviate some pressure during a stressful time when the doctor and family are unaware
…show more content…
whose health has deteriorated due to Alzheimer’s and although not in PVS, is still considered incompetent. While competent, Irene did not complete an advance directive but she had told her sister various times that if she is ever in a debilitated/demented state, then she would prefer to withdraw from treatment. From a philosophical point of view, it is important to also discuss the views of Kantians and Utilitarians in Irene’s case, as their theories might provide important insights to the matter. Kantians believe that decisions should be made based on an individual’s duties and the rights of other people. He believes in the categorical imperative which are moral duties that apply to everyone. Kant states we should treat individuals as an end and never merely as a means, meaning a person should be treated fairly and like autonomous beings. For example, a doctor is not to treat his patient solely as a way to obtain something for himself, but rather in an intrinsic form. Presumably, from a Kantian’s stand point, it would be morally disagreeable to let a rational individual withdraw from treatment because we would not be showing respect for that individual but in this case, Irene is incompetent and no longer rational. Thus, Irene would no longer be considered a moral agent who is subject to the demands of the categorical imperative and therefore, Kant might agree to the current-interests approach,
whose health has deteriorated due to Alzheimer’s and although not in PVS, is still considered incompetent. While competent, Irene did not complete an advance directive but she had told her sister various times that if she is ever in a debilitated/demented state, then she would prefer to withdraw from treatment. From a philosophical point of view, it is important to also discuss the views of Kantians and Utilitarians in Irene’s case, as their theories might provide important insights to the matter. Kantians believe that decisions should be made based on an individual’s duties and the rights of other people. He believes in the categorical imperative which are moral duties that apply to everyone. Kant states we should treat individuals as an end and never merely as a means, meaning a person should be treated fairly and like autonomous beings. For example, a doctor is not to treat his patient solely as a way to obtain something for himself, but rather in an intrinsic form. Presumably, from a Kantian’s stand point, it would be morally disagreeable to let a rational individual withdraw from treatment because we would not be showing respect for that individual but in this case, Irene is incompetent and no longer rational. Thus, Irene would no longer be considered a moral agent who is subject to the demands of the categorical imperative and therefore, Kant might agree to the current-interests approach,