Vegetative State Paternalism

Euthanasia has been an important debate in the world. Some find it immoral because it is the killing of another person, while others do not feel morally offended since it revolves around the individual’s autonomy. However, some cases demonstrate that the individual is unable to respond to the choice of being euthanized due to being in an unconscious or altered state of mind. Autonomy is the ideals that individual have the right to self-govern themselves, when paternalism is the idea that a higher authority governs the people for their best interest. In most situation, individuals should be able to utilize their autonomy and voluntarily consent to euthanasia; however, regarding individuals in a persistent vegetative state paternalism should

Death is vaguely defined, therefore causing misleading judgment within the court, physicians, and guardians. It has to be more scientifically accurate such “as the irreversible loss of higher brain function” (Munson, 2013). An example of this is the case of Karen Quinlan; in 1975 Karen Quinlan mysteriously entered a persistent vegetative state (PVS), where the brain of the person is sometimes mentally aware but sometimes it is not and the body of individual reminds inactive. She was in this state for ten years, ten years of medical resources. Even when the parents said to euthanize her, the court would not accept this request since Karen was considered at the age of consent, which was disrupting her autonomy. Karen was considered also brain-dead and there was no activity of higher brain function just electrical activity (Munson, 2013). Even physicians agreed with Karen being brain-dead, but the court did not allow her life support to be removed because she was considered to be alive. Therefore, the paternalistic action of removing the life support should have trumped the decision of the court to keep Karen alive. The court did not recognize Karen being dead and even if she had awoken the damages would have been

Natural law ethicists would agree with this statement since they view human life as something sacred and protecting the autonomy of human beings is of the most utmost importance. It also states in the text that Ross with his theory of intuitionism believes humans have a prima facie and an actual duty. The prima facie is the duty that is presented, but the actual duty is the main purpose of the person. Ross says that human beings “have a strong prima facie obligation not to kill a person in justifiable self-defense” as well as saying that we have even a strong obligation (actual duty) to “do something that cannot be done without killing (Munson, 2013). This supports the idea that if one is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) the physicians must do everything in their power to protect that life, because according to Ross it is the actual duty of the physicians to provide proper care to his or her patient with the prevention of death. Kant would also agree with Ross due to his theory of deontology that we all have a duty, and as physicians, they have the duty to protect and care for individuals and they must recognize their autonomy in the medical field. Also, going off his second categorical imperative, people should not be treated as means; instead they should be an end, because it will overlook the autonomy of the individual so disagreeing with the Utilitarian perspective.