The end of life: Euthanasia and Morality.
Persistent vegetative state results from damage to the cerebral cortex, which controls cognitive functions. The body however is not dead. Persons in this state are often awake, but are not aware of what is going on around them. They are, in short, incapable of human interaction, although they are very much alive.
The case I have chosen is the very famous case of Nancy Cruzan, a woman in her thirties that lay in persistive vegetative state for seven years following a motor vehicle accident. She could breathe on her own, but was fed through an abdominal tube. Her parents asked that the tube be removed and that she be allowed to die a natural death. After a long court case, the tube was finally removed, and she died several weeks later.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia here concerns whether or not it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a patient. At the core of this debate is the issue of compassion, patient autonomy and informed consent.
In this case non-voluntary euthanasia will take place. This refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is comatose and unable to explicitly make their intentions known. Therefore the family become the surrogate decisionmakers, as the patient is unable to make her own decisions. Because of the fact that the family requested that the tube be removed, it is therefore ethically permissible, as you have informed consent.
Very few of us like to see people suffer and patients have the right to die with dignity. Although no mercy killing is ever morally acceptable, prolonging a meaningless life and letting a person waste away until there is nothing left of their character, this is even more morally unacceptable.
Patients who cannot eat require expensive therapy to maintain their calorie intake. Is this a justifiable expense as the chance of recovery is very slim to almost none? I think not!.