Case Study 1 :WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE SUPPORT
Challenges
R.B., a 52-year old male, Catholic, met an accident and has been in a comatose state and attached to a respirator for 8 months. The family’s resources have been continuously depleted.
The doctors, who have long given up hope for her recovery, feel that they are uselessly prolonging the patient’s life. They have even suggested to the wife that the respirator be detached from the patient. The wife, after consulting with the children, thinks that the doctors are correct. However, she is bothered by the thought that “pulling the plug” would be the same as killing her husband.
Question
Is the wife ethically justified in withdrawing the respirator from her husband?
Solutions
One has to consider that the patient, because of the trauma and the ensuing consequences, is already dying. Thus, in a certain sense, what the respirator actually does is to prolong the dying process, instead of really prolonging life.
Strictly speaking, if the respirator is withdrawn, one does not cause the death of the patient. Rather, the cause of death is the patient’s critical condition itself, and not the withdrawal of the respirator. Likewise, one does not hasten death (unlike if one injects a lethal substance or prescribes an overdose of drugs), but simply lets the dying process take its natural course. Thus, given that there is no longer any hope for recovery, at least in the present state of medical science, and that the life support measures cause too much burden (in ethical terms these are called “extraordinary means”), the wife may decide to withdraw the respirator, even though death of the patient would follow. In such a case, she cannot be considered guilty of killing her husband.
