Introduction
In the discussion presented, Jo Ellen is admitted to the hospital after an incident involving a medical drug overdose. Judging by the attitudes of the patient, along with the information provided on the Notarized Advance Directive, it becomes clear that the 53-year-old has attempted to decisively end her life. After being admitted to the hospital, the patient specifically wishes not to be placed on life support. The situation presents a clear ethical issue between the goals and aims of medical professionals, as contrasted with the actual desires of their clients. Doctors and nurses have a professional and societal obligation to both support the lives of individuals and respect their right to autonomy and self-actualization. In this case, the two missions of medical workers clash, creating a dilemma. An ethical and moral decision has to be made regarding the admittance to life support or its absence, using the best available judgment of doctors and principles of different types of normative ethics.
Normative Ethics Approaches
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that places the existence of “virtues” central to the question of a person’s moral and personal standing. While other normative ethical viewpoints close in on the existence and perpetuation of “goodness” in society, the term becomes much less prominent in virtue ethics. Additionally, it places a lesser impact on the importance of duties or consequences, instead choosing to take a look at intent. Generally, proponents of this approach focus on the quality and importance of moral character, and personal characteristics that are viewed as virtuous. While the exact meaning of virtuous qualities is comparatively abstract, several aspirations such as compassion, care, benevolence, and similar qualities.
For proponents of virtue ethics, actions in society must be accomplished for the sheer purpose of doing a good thing, regardless of consequence. A moral responsibility exists for every individual to act within their best ability to promote the commonly held virtues of society. In the case of allowing a person to die or even assisting their attempts at ending their own life, the possible views on the problem vary. Since the practice primarily mandates why people should act, not how they should do something, it is difficult to decide on the best course of action using this normative approach.
The practicing of compassion and care is crucial to this worldview, meaning that both doctors and nurses have to act within their capacity to provide medical services while also exercising moral virtues. In the case of responding to a person’s desire to die, the doctors can exercise compassion, care, and thoughtfulness in both helping that person to stay alive and assisting them in having a painless death. The ethical implications of medically-assisted suicide have been thoroughly discussed in the virtue ethics field, with proponents arguing both for and against the practice. Therefore, the indecisiveness present in this case can be seen as both a positive and a negative. The disadvantage of having no concrete solution for this particular situation is outweighed by the ability to apply ethics flexibly and appropriately depending on the situation.
Deontological Ethics
Deontology is a form of normative ethics mostly practiced by Kant and closely connected with his categorical imperatives. In this approach, it is believed that several principles, or rules, exist in a society that should not be broken by any participant. By practicing such rules, and acting following the duties that they entail for each person, deontological ethics guarantee the continuation and prosperity of society.
One of the primary factors in deontology, as outlined by Kant himself, is the sanctity of human life. Killing a person is morally and ethically wrong regardless of the consequences, or the implications it would have on the well-being of others. Applying this theory, physician-assisted suicide, or regular suicide are both strictly immoral and should be disallowed. This perspective argues harshly against following Jo Ellen’s wishes and instead prioritizes the value of her life as a human person. While this approach allows reaching a clear and solid conclusion, it also fully ignores the personal wellness and happiness of the individual in question, which is one of the primary considerations for any medical worker. The advantage of using Kant’s ethics is their focus on promoting life; however, the actual worth of saving an individual, in this case, is questionable. A considerable inability to adapt to the case at hand and exercise flexibility could be further seen as a negative.
Consequentialist Ethics
The consequentialist perspective, in contrast to both intentions and duties, focuses primarily on the outcomes of actions, and the desire to promote the maximum possible amount of positive outcomes for as many individuals as possible. The moral backbone of a person’s actions or their goals during a particular act comes second-hand to the actual effects they produce, which are seen as a goal in and of themselves. Consequentialists believe that people must act within their capacity to produce the best outcomes. In the case of a patient wanting to die, it can be argued then that assisting them is justified.
Helping an individual avoid emotional or physical pain by ending their life diminishes the quantity of suffering they feel, and protects their loved ones from seeing them suffer. In addition, the medical costs to both the family and the healthcare system that would be incurred from continued life support are avoided, letting the medical professionals focus their efforts on people that need their assistance. Overall, this approach assumes that more good would come out of helping a person die than keeping them alive. Considering the role of medical professionals in promoting the health of their community, as well as the need to manage budgeting and the desires of individuals, I think that this perspective is the best to take in this case scenario. It offers the benefit of helping more people and respects the wishes of Jo Ellen, which are both important to doctors. While the downside of this ethical framework is the death of a person, it can be justified using the outlined considerations.