Ethics in Medicine

[HawkSA16]

I am asking for your views. I believe this is a very difficult question to answer.

Suppose a girl goes into a hospital for a surgery. The doctor screws up the surgery so badly that the girl's heart and brain no longer function; however, the doctor is able to hook her up to a ventilator, which pumps blood for her and helps her get oxygen throughout her body. After several days the girl makes no recovery.

Would it be right for her to be unplugged?

[bluethread]

I am asking for your views. I believe this is a very difficult question to answer.

Suppose a girl goes into a hospital for a surgery. The doctor screws up the surgery so badly that the girl's heart and brain no longer function; however, the doctor is able to hook her up to a ventilator, which pumps blood for her and helps her get oxygen throughout her body. After several days the girl makes no recovery.

Would it be right for her to be unplugged?

Ideally, I think the ethics need to be worked out before she is hooked up. Once she is hooked up, the game of competing interests is inevitable.

That is the problem with these questions. There are always at least two competing interests. It sounds cold, but the girl is no longer relevant. It is now a battle between the legal industrial complex and the medical industrial complex. Morality is then just a tool for each side to use in that battle. She will not be unplugged until her lawyer is able to extract every last penny from the doctor and the hospital, then absolutely. If the doctor had not screwed up the surgery, but the outcome was the same, she would not be unplugged until the hospital had extracted every last penny from the family or the government, then absolutely.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by HawkSA16]

How to deal with the doctor may be difficult, but what's so difficult about the question of unplugging? Not only would it be right for her to be unplugged, it would be wrong to leave her plugged in. Brain dead? Then unplug, as simple as that.

[McCulloch]

If her brain is not functioning, she is dead. Unplug as soon as any needed organs have been harvested.

[bluethread]

If her brain is not functioning, she is dead. Unplug as soon as any needed organs have been harvested.

Yet another of the competing interests. Isn't keeping her "alive" long enough to harvest the organs literally ghoulish, if not cannibalistic?

[Hatuey]

If her brain is not functioning, she is dead. Unplug as soon as any needed organs have been harvested.

Yet another of the competing interests. Isn't keeping her "alive" long enough to harvest the organs literally ghoulish, if not cannibalistic?

No. It is merciful and righteous. Take the perspective of those lives that would be saved or made much better. No need to waste goodness (living organs) and allow evil (malfunctioning organs). Reminds me of the work of Christ on the cross, to an extent.

[bluethread]

If her brain is not functioning, she is dead. Unplug as soon as any needed organs have been harvested.

Yet another of the competing interests. Isn't keeping her "alive" long enough to harvest the organs literally ghoulish, if not cannibalistic?

No. It is merciful and righteous. Take the perspective of those lives that would be saved or made much better. No need to waste goodness (living organs) and allow evil (malfunctioning organs). Reminds me of the work of Christ on the cross, to an extent.

Interesting use of the term evil. So, a person who has a heart attack has an evil heart? None the less, that is my point. The morality of the situation is dependent on the interests being served, ie the ends justify the means. What is interesting is that the family is not permitted to receive compensation for the organs to cover the medical costs.

[Hatuey]

Interesting use of the term evil. So, a person who has a heart attack has an evil heart? None the less, that is my point.

IF you like. The heart is malfunctioning and will cause loss of life (evil, I guess...right? or not good, whatever) and a "good" (not bad) heart will cause goodness instead of not goodness. How many different ways do we have to qualify the words?

The morality of the situation is dependent on the interests being served, ie the ends justify the means. What is interesting is that the family is not permitted to receive compensation for the organs to cover the medical costs.

Yep. Whoever the donor selects should profit from the SALE of his/her organs. It's only common sense.

[heavensgate]

I am asking for your views. I believe this is a very difficult question to answer.

Suppose a girl goes into a hospital for a surgery. The doctor screws up the surgery so badly that the girl's heart and brain no longer function; however, the doctor is able to hook her up to a ventilator, which pumps blood for her and helps her get oxygen throughout her body. After several days the girl makes no recovery.

Would it be right for her to be unplugged?

Yes very difficult, and more so because I think medicine has advanced so much that it has blurred the line between life and death. If it is merely machines that are artificially prolonging life, then I suggest the decision maker could be at least satisfied that the natural course of life has already finished.
Regards
Jim

[Peter]

I am asking for your views. I believe this is a very difficult question to answer.

Suppose a girl goes into a hospital for a surgery. The doctor screws up the surgery so badly that the girl's heart and brain no longer function; however, the doctor is able to hook her up to a ventilator, which pumps blood for her and helps her get oxygen throughout her body. After several days the girl makes no recovery.

Would it be right for her to be unplugged?

Of course. No brain function = no person. Your question couldn't be simpler unless you buy into the soul theory. If that's the case good luck. There's nothing quite as sad as a person being tormented over wished for but baseless beliefs.