The case “Stephen Dawson: Should Severely Mentally Challenged Patients Be Treated?” outlines the story of a young boy, Stephen Dawson, who suffered from extreme brain damage after contracting meningitis shortly after being born (Thomas, Waluchow, Gedge 229). Dawson received life support surgery at the age of five and was thereafter cared for by his parents. This was an exhausting job as Dawson required frequent doctor’s visits, seizure medicine multiple times a day, and could never be left alone. After contracting the flu, leaving Dawson in even worse condition, the family found a place for him at a care facility. A few years later, Dawson needed another surgery and would most likely die without it. This case presents the dilemma: not to operate, most likely resulting in death, but letting Dawson die in dignity; or operating, which would prolong his life but Dawson would most likely continue to live in pain and suffering. The surgery should not be performed for two reasons: the decision should lie in the hands of the parents and performing the surgery would not be improving Dawson’s quality of life.
The case argued that perhaps Dawson’s parents lacked information about his responsiveness and progress and therefore the caregivers at the facility should make the decision. However, it is important to remember that Dawson’s parents cared for him for many years and spent hours per day feeding him, giving him his medicine, and ensuring his wellness as best as possible. Although the case does not specify how many times the parents visited him in the care facility, it is unlikely that they were uniformed about his condition after they had spent years caring for him. Therefore making them competent decision makers in this case.
Judge Bryne also said that the surgery would, “…prolong a life inflicted with an incurable condition” and “constitute cruel and unusual treatment of Stephen” (Thomas, Waluchow, Gedge 231). As Beauchamp and Childress state, “…mental retardation is irrelevant in determining whether treatment is in the patient’s best interest. Proxies should not confuse quality of life for the patient with the value of the patient’s life for others” (Beauchamp and Childress 173). Based on Dawson’s intellectual disability, it is not reason enough to withhold the surgery. However, his constant discomfort and pain, blindness, epilepsy, and constant need for intense drugs gives enough reason to characterize his quality of life as very poor. The surgery would not be of benefit because it would do nothing to improve his existing conditions and would arguably cause him more harm than good.
In a journal from the American Academy of Pediatrics, they state that, “[f]or such serious matters as LSMT [life-sustaining medical treatment], the medical plan usually should conform to the values and choices of the patient and his or her family” (Guidelines on Forgoing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment 532). Therefore, Dawson’s parents should be given the ability to make the decision for their son. Furthermore,“[p]hysicians and families should also consider whether continued treatment conforms with respect for the meaning of human life and accords with the interests of others, such as family members and other loved ones” (Guidelines on Forgoing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment 535). Prolonging Dawson’s current condition does not fulfill the guideline of respecting “the meaning of human life” as his conditions make it difficult to live pain free. While withholding this surgery may seem like the equivalent to death, Dawson’s parents have argued that it would be better for him to die with dignity than to live suffering.
Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
“Guidelines on Forgoing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment.” American Academy of Pediatrics 93.3 (1994): 532-36. Pediatrics. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/93/3/532.full.pdf>.
Thomas, John, Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. “Stephen Dawson: Should Severely Mentally Challenged Patients Be Treated?”.” Well and Good. Toronto: Broadview, 2014. Print.
As hard as this decision may be, I agree with Dawson’s parents that it is best not to operate since Dawson’s quality of life would not improve. Unfortunately, not operating would most likely lead to death. He has been suffering all of his life and his parents would prefer that he die with dignity without further pain. Although I feel that we should always try to do the most we can to save lives, there are times when a person cannot handle anymore suffering. The decision must be made based on whether the benefit of the surgery outweighs the harm caused to the patient.