When Does Life Begin - Essay Example

Midterm paper It would not be a mistake to suggest that the debate about the nature of life and death has been of the mostcontroversial in the history of the mankind. That is why nowadays there is no flat answer towards such questions: When does life begin? and Are people able to end life of terminally ill patients? Quite surprising, but there are instances when two of this questions are combined in one case. This paper will provide an objective overview of the situation involving Marlise Munoz, examining various perspectives on the issue. To begin with, it may be advantageous to state some of the fact of the case. Thus, on November 26 Ms. Munoz was found unconscious on the kitchen floor. The doctors diagnosed a blood clot in one of her lungs and recognized her as brain dead. However, at the time she was 14 week pregnant. In hospital, the spouse as well as the family said that they want Ms. Munoz to be disconnected from her life support, but the hospital authorities refused to do so. The latter argued that there was a specific law in Texas which prohibited the hospitals from ending life support for pregnant patients. As one can easily see, the moral problem here can be formulated in the following way: should disconnecting the body of a woman who was recognized as brain dead, but who is pregnant be seen as euthanasia? Of course different ethical theories would have a different opinion about it: the Utilitarianism would consider the happiness that is promoted by this action, while Kantian Ethics would strongly oppose to such action. Speaking of the role of patient, it is obvious that Ms. Munoz was not able to say anything about the decision that she would like to make. However, it is quite possible to review the statement that she made about such case and construct her possible opinion. In any case, she remained passive in this situation. The role of the health care professional is more difficult: on the one hand, the doctors are obliged to do anything that would help their patients; however, on the other hand, they are not allowed to break the law. Indeed, the hospital thought that by disconnecting Ms. Munoz from live support it committed a crime; that is why it is obviously understandable that the facility was reluctant to follow the requests of the family since the responsibly for violating the applicable law may be quite severe. The family, in this case, might be regarded as the representative of the view of Ms. Munoz. In spite of the fact that she was married, it is her father and mother that she spent the majority of her life with and it is reasonable to believe that they are able to know what their daughter would truly want. In other words, since the opinion of the patient can not be articulated, the family should be treated as if the patient herself is articulating the concerns. This is one of the reasons why it is rather difficult to determine who is able to have the final say in this situation: since neither doctors nor family are the patient, they decisions will be subjective. With this in mind, one may note that the consensus between the two parties should be reached and the responsibility for the further actions should be shared between them. In any case, it would not be correct that suggest that one of the parties has more power than the other: for example, though the family knew Ms. Munoz longer, only the doctors are able to give an objective evaluation of her state. Now, it may be advantageous to examine the opposing view that can be identified in the case above. On the one hand, there is the position of the family and the husband. They argued that Ms. Munoz should be disconnected from life support. The advantage of this position lies in the fact that it would make more people happy than the opposite action. In other words, from a Utilitarian point of it, it should be treated as a moral action (Basford, 2003, p. 220). On the other hand, the desire to end life support that is expressed by the family might be seen as a rather subjective and self centered desire. Though these three people will be happy, they did not think about the possible complications that this would make for the hospital staff. On the other hand, there is a point of view, according to which Ms. Munoz must not be disconnected from life support. It can be justified by the desire of the hospital to follow the law. In other words, this medical facility shows adherence to the Kantian perspective on Ethics. The strength of this position lies in the fact that it offers a clear cut decision and understandable justification: the law prohibits ending life support for pregnant patients; therefore, it may not be ended even if the patient is recognized to be brain dead (Baron, 1995, p. 1). Contrary to that, some might note that this position also features some drawbacks: though it seemingly tells people what to do in difficult situations, it limits their perception to a certain extent and does not take into account all aspects of the situations. Indeed, there are only around 30 examples when a pregnant woman was connected to life support; so, the statistics on this may not be excessive. Nevertheless, this is not the case when one size fits all approach should be maintained. Finally, it may be useful to evaluate relationships between some concepts with regard to this case. First of all, if one considers paternalism versus autonomy debate, one might suggest that hospital clearly cross the limits of it power and deprived not only the patient, but also her family of autonomy. With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the actions of the medical facility in question should be condemned since they are too imperative. Secondly, one may also engage in the discussion the concept of Hippocratic Oath. According to it the principle of not harming the patient is proclaimed by the highest one. That is why while supporting life of the patient, the hospital did not harm the woman in any way. It might have caused some emotional stress to the members of her family, but it obviously did not harm the patient. That is why the actions which were carried out by the medical facility in question complied with Hippocratic Oath. Finally, the debate between Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics should be reviewed as well. It is obvious that the family was a representative of the former since they thought that death of Ms. Munoz would do more good that the current state that she was in. On the other hand, the doctors were guided by Kantian Ethics: they did not want to break the law in any way; they knew that they are not allowed to kill their patients, but only treat them. Having examined all the points that were mentioned in the paragraphs above, one might suggest that the case in question shows that sometimes common debate, such as pro-choice and pro-life debate about abortion and euthanasia, might be combined which created a problem that is even more controversial. Nevertheless, it may be important to find a common ground in order to find a consensus on the case since without it the further development of the issue would only make the situation worse for all the parties that are involved. References Baron, M. (1995). Kantian ethics almost without apology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Basford, L. (2003). Theory and practice of nursing an integrated approach to caring practice (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Read More