Ethical Hypothetical – On Disability, Voluntary Euthanasia, And Organ Donation
A hypothetical:
A, a young man of utilitarian persuasion, decides that life with a disability is not justified. A signs a statutory declaration to such effect, adding that in the case of an emergency where an operation could save his life though leave him disabled he refuses medical assistance other than that which will enable his organs to be donated.
A, after this declaration, is involved in an accident that leaves him unconscious and with a leg requiring amputation. Surgery to remove the limb will be uncomplicated, and enable A to live with a disability. Following A's instructions will involve the medical professions in the death of an individual who would otherwise have recovered, though his organs will be donated to numerous other individuals who will benefit from them.
I’m interested in reactions to this particular example (in particular, the ethically correct course of action for the medical professionals), so, please, articulate your responses in the comments.
A, a young man of utilitarian persuasion, decides that life with a disability is not justified. A signs a statutory declaration to such effect, adding that in the case of an emergency where an operation could save his life though leave him disabled he refuses medical assistance other than that which will enable his organs to be donated.
A, after this declaration, is involved in an accident that leaves him unconscious and with a leg requiring amputation. Surgery to remove the limb will be uncomplicated, and enable A to live with a disability. Following A's instructions will involve the medical professions in the death of an individual who would otherwise have recovered, though his organs will be donated to numerous other individuals who will benefit from them.
I’m interested in reactions to this particular example (in particular, the ethically correct course of action for the medical professionals), so, please, articulate your responses in the comments.
posted by MH at 12:45 pm
6 Comments:
I believe that the answer to this situation lies in the definition of disability itself. Many people who can't walk dislike the term disabled because it doesn't acurately describe their condition. They see themselves as people who can live just as anyone else, but some things are harder, and some impossible.
A isn't truly disabled (permanent brain damamge might be a more proper diagnosis that would require the doctors to invoke A's wishes), so the doctors shouldn't terminate his life, and most likely A will thank them for it.
You seem to have picked up on the very reason for my choice of ‘disability’; the amputation of a leg is only a minor ‘disability’ in comparison to permanent brain damage but the latter seems to be a more clear cut ethical case (i.e. in such a situation it would be, seemingly, more difficult for a doctor to argue against the request).
So, to clarify the hypothetical, let us assume that A would still consider the loss of a leg a disability sufficient to make his life unjustified (given that his ‘death’ and the distribution of his organs accords with his already stated preference more closely than the continuation of his life).
With this clarification (I should have spelt out the original more precisely), do you maintain your initial position?
No then. THe doctors are not moral agents in this situation - A is. Therefore, in following through with his desires, something that was very explicitly dictated, they are culpable for nothing.
If that's not so convincing, look at it this way. When someone hires a hitman, both the hitman and the peron who hired he/she is culpable. However, in this situation the doctor is not culpable, A is, because the actions of the doctor affect no one negatively but A, and A agreed to the actions.
Thanks for your comments thus far; I'm off to consider if your analogy holds ...
Michael – There is nothing like an empty assertion to get me stumped. Are you able to elaborate on how A is acting ‘immorally’ in terms of ‘society based morals’ by asking to be euthanased and having his organs donated to those who will benefit from them? Part of the problem – as I perceive it – is that there is no socially acceptable practice in this particular situation, and thus there isn’t an ethical precedent that would determine whether A is or is not acting unethically.
While I am sure that this does not totally answer the question you have posed, I hope it will be of interest.
Having experienced the anguish of seeing a very close relative come to terms with severe physical disability following an accident at a very young age (which in truth in past generations, the chances of survival were not great) I know that immediately after the accident their were times when I know he questioned whether he could live with his level of disability, as I think anybody would do in a similar situation. However fifteen years on he is an active musician, performing live gigs. He is still paralysed but leads a very active life.
What has changed…He has.
I think Viktor E. Frankl summed it up in the following quote:
“For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment.”
I would add that by staying alive you have a better chance of being given that “moment” to decide, rather than trying to judge how you may feel and cope with a situation in the future. You just may be wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home