Should Children or Spouses Withhold Life Support to Loved Ones - Essay Example

?Argumentative Essay It is never an easy situation for any family when one of their family members becomes so badly injured in a devastating accidentor succumb to a health condition that they find themselves in a state between life and death. “Being kept alive only by machines and medication, that person seldom stands the chance of being able to live a full, satisfying life, prompting many people to consider the decision of whether or not that person should be kept on life support if the efforts will only end up being fruitless (Pence, pg. 78)”. However, it becomes a question of ethics when considering if it is okay to allow children, spouses, or next of kin to withhold life support to loved ones when it is evident that the loved one will never get better or enjoy quality of life. It is also a question of concern of whether or not the family members should make the decision or if the choice should be left to a professional in the medical field. When family members find themselves in the throes of deciding whether or not to pull their loved one off of life support, instead of fully considering reason and the facts, they prefer to hold on to the hope that their loved one will get better over time. They tend to allow themselves to be controlled by questions of ‘what if’, feeling that it will always be too soon to make the decision with the hopes that maybe all their loved one needs is just a little more time. Nowadays, doctors and neurologists are able to determine the outcome of the patient in regard to quality of life, but family members often throw aside the facts and decide on just to wait and hope. There are others that also believe that it would be considered murder to pull their family members off of life support, a grueling concept that is argued on both sides. The line between ethical and unethical becomes very thin in a situation such as this. Nevertheless, there are some family members that would simply rather not see their loved one barely alive and unable to ever enjoy life. To them, there is no purpose to life when life cannot be properly enjoyed. This, perhaps, is the best way to look a situation of this nature. If a person is on life support without the hope of getting better or being able to enjoy their life, it would be more ethical to not allow them to continue to suffer, because suffering is all that they are doing. Family members are sometimes inclined to keep their loved ones on life support without considering how that person will actually benefit from it, if they can benefit from it at all. “Once a person reaches a state of vegetation, it takes a miracle for them to come out of it (Freeman, pg. 92)”. Many people require therapy, and even these patients do not go on to lead normal, productive lives. Parts of their brain are still unable to function to let them be aware of their surroundings. When it comes to contemplating whether or not to keep a person on life support, the case of Terri Schiavo is often considered. In 1990, Schiavo collapsed in her home from cardiac arrest, suffering massive brain damage; after a few months in the hospital, she was considered to be in a vegetative state, completely unaware of anything around her, even though she would occasionally respond to certain stimuli. She remained on life support for a few years, undergoing various therapies with the hope that she could be brought back to a state of awareness. Eight years later, when there was no sign or hope of improvement, her husband appealed to have her feeding tube removed, which would ultimately end her life. Schiavo’s estranged parents did not agree with this, and a battle ensued. The argument on the behalf of Schiavo’s parents was that Schiavo was still conscious, while her husband’s argument was that she was unaware of anything going on and she never would come out of this state. It was pointless to keep her alive because she would never be able to enjoy life. Indeed, no other option would exist for her except to be bedridden and attached to tubes to keep her alive. This was another part of Mister Schiavo’s argument for taking his wife off of life support, the fact that she was not staying alive of her own accord. She was dependent on a machine to keep her breathing, but no amount of machinery could help her to properly function. In Mister Schiavo’s perspective, his wife had already died since she was not living by her own means. The greatest issue was that, due to her state, Schiavo could not say what she wanted. Her husband believed that she would not want to prolong her suffering and that her parents were acting on greed to simply keep her alive. Her parents, on the other hand, felt that Schiavo would want them to keep trying until every possibility had been worn out. “It all came down to the fact that Schiavo did not have a voice of her own, and therefore everyone else attempted to speak for her (Goodman, pg. 190)”. Mister Schiavo claimed to know best what his wife would want and also pointed out that she would not be able to enjoy life as she once had, and keeping her on life support would only prolong the inevitable. It was this that made it easier to decide whether or not to continue life support. There was nothing to suggest that Schiavo would even survive much longer while on life support; as her condition was not improving, it was decided that nothing else could be done. “Greed tends to be the determining factor for all parties involved (Yount, pg. 204)”, but people need to focus on what is best for the patient. If there is no hope of recovery, then the person should not be continued to be kept on life support. They will have no opportunity to partake in the events that make life worthwhile. Furthermore, this decision should be made by the most immediate family members as they would know what would be for the best. This holds true especially if the family members truly know that their relative would not want to remain on life support. While doctors may be able to inform the family of the situation, it should not be up to them to end someone’s life. They can supply the family with reasons as to why unplugging the person from life support is a good or bad idea, but the family should have the final say about losing one of their own. The opposing side of the argument focuses on the concept that “it should not be up to us to determine when somebody should die (CITE)”. Even though the person is unaware of what is taking place, they are still alive, and to pull them off of life support would be to kill them. Similarly, such as in the case of Terri Schiavo, it was seen as unethical to deprive her of her food as the method to end her life. At the same time, it was believed that she was unaware of needing food, let alone actually being fed. As previously mentioned, Schiavo, as well as many in similar positions, are already considered dead, at least in regard to the lack of function in their brains. As such, to pull them from life support would be to accept what has already happened. If a person living solely by the means of life support shows no signs of improving, they should not be forced to live. In a vegetative state, they are as unaware of life as they would be if they were no longer living. Moreover, the choice to bring about the end of a life in such circumstances should be placed in the hands of the closest family members. Only they could know what is best for the person that they have known for a long time. To keep a person alive who is no longer able to acknowledge the world would be more unethical than to allow them the chance to finally peacefully leave the world. Works Cited Freeman, John Mark. Tough Decisions: Cases in Medical Ethics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Goodman, Kenneth W. The Case of Terri Schiavo: Ethics, Politics, and Death in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Pence, Gregory E. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases and Issues That Define Medical Ethics. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print. Yount, Lisa. Right to Die and Euthanasia. 2nd ed. New York: Facts on File, 2007. Print. Read More