Baby K's Case

My group seemed to have similar responses to all four cases. In the Bente 's case there seemed to be two similar points that were relied on to determine that Bente should die. We all had a utilitarian point of view and talked about how the parents and family were going through unnecessary suffering watching Bente’s pain.We also all heavily relied on the fact that Bente was in severe pain. Justin did have a little difference response and said that Bente should allow death.

In the Baby K’s case we all had very different answers, but all agreed that death should be allowed. The one consistent thing being that Baby K did not have any mental awareness. It seemed that there was similar points made about how she had no future.

In the case of the lung patient it seemed the case the Jovonnie and Justin both believed life should be prolonged because treatment either could be immediately improved or the chance of treatment improving. Jovonnie confused me at the end because she said that life should be prolonged, but at the end of the explanation said that the patient should be the one to decide and the patient is the one who wants to die. So in the end I believe she would have let the patient decide,

I think he could have relied heavily on non-maleficence in a strict sense of the term that doctor should not do any harm. Also, throughout all four cases I believed that we relied heavily on taking into account how the family would be affected by the decision, which shows a utilitarian perspective. I also, noticed that when it came down to the final decisions autonomy of the patient was not always respected by all three of us, such as the car accident victim. She wanted death, but we all denied her because we were worried about her mental health. Although with autonomy we should have still respected her wishes, if we were solly basing our decision on