For my paper this week I chose to write on option one, an elderly man who is suffering from terminal cancer and his son wants to take him off the respirator and IV drip. This scenario to me is a difficult one to discuss whether it is ethical for the doctor to abide by the son’s wishes. You could argue both ways whether this is ethical or not. In this scenario I think it is ethical for the son to ask the doctor to stop the respirator and IV drip. The patient is on heavy pain medication, an IV with antibiotics and a respirator, which is helping to keep him comfortable and ultimately alive. The patient has signed a DNR, which is attached to his charts. At this point the patient is slipping in and out of consciousness and the doctor believes …show more content…
This decision involves doing the right thing, either to keep the patient alive to continue undergoing physical suffering or to end the suffering. I think the doctor needs to make sure that the son has all the information on what happens when they withhold or withdraw medical treatment. The utilitarian approach may be used to address the issue of the withdrawal of treatment. People could use the utilitarian approach in a good and bad way depending on who the person is. A person that want’s to withhold treatment for his or her own prerogative and not in the best interest of the patient would make that person happy. On the other hand a person that wants to withhold treatment because they think it is in the best interest of the patient is making a good person happy. Another approach that could be applied is the deontological approach. Kant believed that motive is the key to morality and subscribed to the fact that the Categorical Imperative, good will and duty are the foundations for moral actions. Kant’s Categorical Imperative teaches that to be moral, one must act in such a way that they would be willing for those actions to become a universal law. The physician under Kantian law must feel that the omission is the right thing to do out of rational