Introduction
The consequentialist problem, as rendered by the case of Nancy Cruzan— who was in a vegetative state after a terrible accident — puts medical ethics to the test. This particular matter demonstrates that there is a conflict between sustaining one’s life through medication and heeding the patient’s earlier pleas against such actions. The decision to discontinue life-sustaining measures for Nancy Cruzan is morally defensible within the framework of principlism, respecting her autonomy in light of previously expressed wishes and balancing the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Autonomy and the Moral Fabric of Individual Choice
In medical settings, autonomy theory concerns individuals’ ability to make decisions about their own lives. Nancy Cruzan’s case challenges this principle because she is incapacitated and cannot express her wishes directly. However, before that unfortunate incident, Cruzan had made it known that she did not want to live in a state where she was not “halfway normal.” Thus, her comments before the accident can be regarded as expressions of autonomy—her decision on how severely injured people should live their lives.
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: Weighing the Good Against Harm
Two central principles of medical ethics, goodwill and non-maleficence, offer insightful perspectives on the ethical dilemma posed by Nancy Cruzan’s case. From a beneficence standpoint, life-preserving treatments such as feeding tubes could be seen as straightforward ways to save a person’s life (1). This approach is based on the belief that all forms of human life have inherent value, thereby justifying their extension if possible. However, due to her persistent vegetative state without consciousness or interactivity, Cruzan’s situation poses a significant problem for beneficence. Thinking about her pre-injury comments against existing in this condition calls into question whether keeping biological existence is consistent with genuine goodwill.
Non-maleficence, the ethic of doing no harm, complicates everything in Cruzan’s case. This principle means refraining from any harmful or torturous activities (2). Advocating for sustaining her life on a feeding tube against the antithetical wishes she had made before the accident can be viewed as harming her. Such a position compels us to confront the ethical dilemma of sustaining biological existence and the potential harm from denying patient autonomy and ignoring their view of dignified living. The tension between doing good, as seen through preserving life, and not causing harm becomes particularly vivid.
Justice and the Equitable Consideration of Interests
In the context of medical ethics, justice concerns the equal distribution of resources and the respect for persons. In terms of individual rights and the preservation of life, Cruzan’s case should be considered. The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision requiring “clear and convincing evidence” reflects a society that prefers preserving life instead of taking it away. However, this brings into question the fairness towards vegetative patients whose opinions were against such measures meant to keep them alive.
Reflective Consideration and the Primacy of Principlism
A selection of principlism over other ethical frameworks, such as virtue ethics, is an intentional choice based on its systematic approach to addressing biomedical ethical dilemmas. In healthcare, this is particularly well-suited to tease out morally ambiguous cases such as Nancy Cruzan’s, as it offers a multifaceted lens with four core tenets: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (4). It differs from virtue ethics, whereby the moral character and virtues of people making decisions matter most; instead, principlism directly tackles ethical issues (3). It provides medical practitioners with a realistic framework for examining ethical disputes and systematically finding moral solutions.
As I consider my future career, I am drawn to principlism because it is focused on individual rights while also considering ethical issues in medical matters. It has not been a coincidence that these two aspects of me have come together; I believe ethics should be approached holistically, taking into account all dimensions of human well-being and dignity. Looking ahead to my role in medicine, I commit myself to upholding the principles of respect for patient autonomy, promotion of their welfare, minimization of harm, and justice in health care provision, and the equitable distribution of medical resources across society.
Conclusion
To summarize, the tragic case of Nancy Cruzan shows us that making decisions about life-sustaining medical interventions is a complex ethical issue. Principlism provides a moral guide for caregivers. It emphasizes the importance of respecting the patient’s right to make decisions while also considering principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. This provides direction for caregivers while also highlighting their obligation to their patients.
Bibliography
- Garcia JLA. Virtues and principles in biomedical ethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 2020; 45(4-5):471–503.
- John S, Wu J. “First, do no harm”? non-maleficence, population health, and the ethics of risk. Social Theory and Practice. 2022; 48(3):525–51.
- Adetayo D, Obasa E. The ethics of artificial intelligence in healthcare settings. 2023.
- Lyftogt K. A multi-case study of understanding community-level ethics at community-engaged research universities. The University of Minnesota. 2022.