Background
In the case, “Confronting Death: Who Chooses, Who Controls?” a man named Dax Cowart was severely injured in a propane gasoline accident. Most of his body suffered from deep burns, in addition to leaving him blind and losing the use of his hands. His father was killed in the explosion, which left him in emotional pain aside from his physical agony. He endured burn treatments the following year that were extremely painful. Dax also made two videos, one of which was entitled “Please Let Me Die.”
Dilemma
The main ethical dilemma involves whether a patient’s decision to die should be respected. Dax had wanted to stop his treatments and requested to die. Even though the psychiatrist stated he was competent, the doctors did not listen to his request. A critical issue involves at what point does the patient understand all the risks and benefits of his situation. His decision should be voluntary and based on informed consent. One side of the argument believes that although Dax had requested to die, they felt he was emotional because of his disability now and since his father had just died. On the other side, Dax was in extreme pain and was declared competent. It was his autonomous decision whether to die.
Reflection
The central issue in this case can be argued for both sides. In my opinion, the doctors felt he did not clearly understand his situation concerning recovery. As doctors, they felt it was in his best interest to continue the treatments. Doctors have a duty to take care of their patients and to help them survive if it is possible. If the doctors believed that they could improve his quality of life, then it is in the patient’s best interest to have the surgery or treatment. For this reason, the doctors did not listen to Dax’s wish to die. Additionally, I think people often become more irrational and feel as if there is no way out when they are in such pain. Was Dax in the state of mind to make these decisions correctly? In this state of suffering, the patient may only be able to see the short-term picture of the situation. The doctor is able to see the long-term picture and come to a proper decision. Dax later admitted that he didn’t understand that he could have the quality of life that he has now. If he had been in less pain when he was being treated, then he may have wanted to continue to live. He states, “Today I am happy; in fact I even feel that I’m happier than most people. I’m more active physically than I thought I ever would be” (RD p. 17). Today Dax is a practicing attorney in Texas. Therefore, I believe the doctors were correct in disregarding Dax’s decision to die. They made an ethical choice to do what they felt was in the best interest of their patient with the possibility that he could recover and live a quality life. Dax recognized that he would be “willing to forgo some of my own autonomy in the interest of better decisions being made (RD p. 24).
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Seventh ed. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Cowart, Dax, and Robert Burt. “Confronting Death Who Chooses, Who Controls?” JSTOR. The Hastings Center, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527969>
I wrote a blog post on this case – also agreeing that the doctors were morally obligated to treat Dax and keep him alive. In this situation I think you are correct in that the doctors were able to see the long term for Dax, whereas his thought was probably clouded by pain and his decision might have been different had he been in less pain. I think the one thing I struggled most with this case is that he actually said that if he had to do this all over again he would still choose to die because he was in such excruciating pain and the doctor’s should have respected his choice.