Dpoa's Ability To Paw Life Support: A Case Study

utilitarianism as well as autonomy, it is evident that the policy should be upheld stating the DPOA’s ability to withdraw life support. Utilitarianism, founded by John Stuart Mill, states that actions are good or bad in relation to the end or outcome. Furthermore, actions are right if they produce happiness and wrong as they produce the reverse of happiness. The aspect of happiness is an umbrella term, which includes pleasure and the absence of pain (Burkhardt., & Nathaniel., 2014). Ultimately, utilitarianism supports the policy allowing a DPOA to withdraw life support because of the ability to prevent further pain. “For a patient who is no longer capable of intellectual pursuits (pleasure), and physically suffers (pain), Mill would state …show more content…
An example of one case that illustrates the opposition some people have with the DPOA’s ability to withdraw life support was shown in Karen Quinlan’s case in New Jersey. Karen was not able to breath without a mechanical ventilator or eat without a feeding tube; her father, who was the DPOA, decided that it would be best to withdraw Karen from life support. The doctors who were assigned to her care did not agree with the father’s decision because they felt recovery was possible for Karen and they should attempt to do everything they could to help her recover. Since the physicians did not agree, they refused to withdraw life support. Ultimately the case was taken to court and the judge ruled in favor of the family’s wishes (National Center for Life and liberty, 2015). This case shows how there are people who do not believe that DPOA’s should always have the ability to withdraw life support. In Karen’s case, it was beneficial that the court ruled in favor of the families rights to withdraw treatment because it ultimately prevents suffering and allows for patient