OCE
Rudolfo Linares’ fifteen-month-old son had been comatose for the last nine months after suffocating on an uninflated balloon at a party. Linares’ partially brain-dead son was connected to a respirator which Linares attempted to disconnect. After growing impatient with the legal process, Linares held off nurses, doctors, and police officers at gunpoint while he disconnected the respirator. He cried while cradling his dying son and proclaimed that he disconnected the respirator out of love for his son. This situation raised the issue of the ethics behind Linares’s “mercy killing” of his own son and the debate of whether his actions should count as first-degree murder. I will argue that Linares’s actions are justified and he should not be …show more content…
It is imperative to determine how pleasure can be maximized for the greatest amount of people by analyzing the possible consequences of one’s actions. Therefore, by sacrificing what was left of their son’s life by unplugging the respirator, both parents ended up better off. At this point, Rudolfo Linares’ son had already spent half of his life in a coma with a brain that was now partially dead. Being in a coma at such a young age, his body had likely already missed many development milestones that his peers would have already hit. He would have never been able to learn how to run, read, or ride a bike. His parents knew that their son would never be able to live a full and capable life. Seeing that there was no solution or cure for his son’s condition and that the brain damage was irreversible, the Linares family likely believed that they would rather end their son’s life then allow him to live a meaningless life. Having to witness their son live an unfulfilling life would have been the source of a lot of heartache for the Linares parents. Therefore, the utilitarian perspective justifies Mr. Linares’ actions by indicating that it would have been appropriate to allow their son to die in order to save the Linares family prolonged pain and …show more content…
Being partially brain dead, Mr. Linares’ son was currently already in a vegetative state, it can be assumed that is no hope for a cure. Since there is no hope that the son can return to a state of being able to complete basic human functions, a “mercy killing” would have allowed the hospital to free up beds and resources for patients with curable diseases and injuries. The Linares family likely saw it as a waste to continue to pay for medical expenses when they had already accepted that their son’s condition was irreversible. The utilitarian argument would agree that it would be beneficial to the general welfare to unplug the son from the respirator. The loss of one life would not only benefit the Linares family in the long run but also many other patients and their
Rudolfo Linares’ fifteen-month-old son had been comatose for the last nine months after suffocating on an uninflated balloon at a party. Linares’ partially brain-dead son was connected to a respirator which Linares attempted to disconnect. After growing impatient with the legal process, Linares held off nurses, doctors, and police officers at gunpoint while he disconnected the respirator. He cried while cradling his dying son and proclaimed that he disconnected the respirator out of love for his son. This situation raised the issue of the ethics behind Linares’s “mercy killing” of his own son and the debate of whether his actions should count as first-degree murder. I will argue that Linares’s actions are justified and he should not be …show more content…
It is imperative to determine how pleasure can be maximized for the greatest amount of people by analyzing the possible consequences of one’s actions. Therefore, by sacrificing what was left of their son’s life by unplugging the respirator, both parents ended up better off. At this point, Rudolfo Linares’ son had already spent half of his life in a coma with a brain that was now partially dead. Being in a coma at such a young age, his body had likely already missed many development milestones that his peers would have already hit. He would have never been able to learn how to run, read, or ride a bike. His parents knew that their son would never be able to live a full and capable life. Seeing that there was no solution or cure for his son’s condition and that the brain damage was irreversible, the Linares family likely believed that they would rather end their son’s life then allow him to live a meaningless life. Having to witness their son live an unfulfilling life would have been the source of a lot of heartache for the Linares parents. Therefore, the utilitarian perspective justifies Mr. Linares’ actions by indicating that it would have been appropriate to allow their son to die in order to save the Linares family prolonged pain and …show more content…
Being partially brain dead, Mr. Linares’ son was currently already in a vegetative state, it can be assumed that is no hope for a cure. Since there is no hope that the son can return to a state of being able to complete basic human functions, a “mercy killing” would have allowed the hospital to free up beds and resources for patients with curable diseases and injuries. The Linares family likely saw it as a waste to continue to pay for medical expenses when they had already accepted that their son’s condition was irreversible. The utilitarian argument would agree that it would be beneficial to the general welfare to unplug the son from the respirator. The loss of one life would not only benefit the Linares family in the long run but also many other patients and their