In Chapter 6 of Well and Good, the authors present two very intriguing cases regarding end-of-life issues and whether to allow patients to die. In the first case, Carole suffers from cardiorespiratory arrests and is incompetent to decide whether the physicians may take her off life support. Her son cites religious issues, in the form of a curse that has been put on him that will wreak havoc should he fail to return his mother to Jamaica before death, as his main argument to keep her on life support. The doctor should go ahead with the do not resuscitate order for several reasons. The first is that the son does not have the means, and is not in a situation to obtain the means, to travel from Canada to Jamaica in a reasonable amount of time, as he is unemployed and bankrupt. To allow the son enough time to get enough money to get to Jamaica would needlessly extend his mother’s suffering and divert precious medical resources away from others that need them. The doctors not only have an obligation to Carole, but also to all the other patients in the hospital. Carole’s prospects for recovery are nonexistent, as there is no hope for repairing her breathing muscles and she would die in minutes if taken off the respirator. While Carole may or may not be in pain, she is unaware of her surroundings and is not leading a fulfilling life in the hospital. Unless the son can get the money in a reasonable time frame and Carole’s treatment resources are not taking resources from other patients, the doctors have an obligation to the other patients to take her off the respirator.

The case that I thought was more interesting was the second one, in which 26-year-old John suffers from “the elephant man’s disease” and wishes to be euthanized. John is also on a respirator, and would most likely die very quickly if taken off it.  He is competent and not subject to any form of manipulation, and has decided that he wants to be euthanized. I would allow it.

The issue of death with dignity is an issue that arises from the debate between autonomy and the common moral belief of “do not kill.” Many people bring valid reasons to the “against” side of this debate, such as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty of UC Irvine. Dr. Kheriaty argues that people that wish for death are often doing so under the influence of severe, yet treatable, psychological issues such as chronic depression. He also argues that these patients feel that they are an undue to their caregivers and families. Finally, he makes the point that, in our society, people that do not have the resources to secure proper care to give them a comfortable hospice process may see euthanasia as their only option. See Dr. Kheriaty’s remarks here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGzXGOsNNt8.

While there are valid points against death with dignity, one cannot deny the moral inconsistencies it invokes. As Dr. Allan Saxe says in his TED talk (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7ehf6CmG4Y), many states allow capital punishment, which is definitely non-consensual. So, why should they not allow consensual physician-assisted suicide that affects no other people whatsoever? The arguments against death with dignity would be stronger if those enforcing policies against it were morally consistent. However, they are not. A morally inconsistent authority does not have the right to impose inconsistent morals upon others, and the autonomy of a patient such as John, who is suffering greatly and is perfectly competent to decide for himself, must not be violated. As long as John is ruled to be psychologically healthy by a psychiatrist, he should be allowed to die.