TING Questions for the Third Exam

Ting
Ting:
1. In Terry Schiavo's case, is the provision of food and water through a feeding tube an “extraordinary means” for sustaining life? Was the removal of the feeding tube tantamount to “causing” her death, or simply to “removing an obstacle to death” which in the first place had already started creeping into her?

2. After careful considerations of the various ethical theories/views we discussed, what “personal moral system or code” can you come up with and which you can adopt? Be sure to talk about the values, precepts/ideas, and other elements that should comprise this “personal moral system or code”. Include your conception of freedom and accountability in this given moral system and your view of what it means to be a moral individual.

Quote :

1. In Terry Schiavo's case, is the provision of food and water through a feeding tube an “extraordinary means” for sustaining life? Was the removal of the feeding tube tantamount to “causing” her death, or simply to “removing an obstacle to death” which in the first place had already started creeping into her?

Is it extraordinary? If by extraordinary, we mean that a person doesn't normally live life being fed through a tube, yes. Is it necessary? If we take the practice of medicine to be that of only saving lives, then yes. Is it humane? If we take side of the right-to-lifers, yes; if we take the side of the right-to-die advocates, no. Terri Schiavo's case is anybody's game; it depends on who gets to talk about it. Everybody involved in the case is putting words into Terri's mouth; we have no actual knowledge if she herself wants life support or not. Every argument related to this issue is dependent on who Terri's spokesperson-of-the-moment is.

Paraphrasing the second question, choice one would be: "Would removing the feeding tube be considered as murder?", and choice two would be: "Would removing the feeding tube be considered as an act of 'release'?". The act would be murder; the act would, in effect, kill a person. The act also releases Terri, and all other parties directly concerned, from the burden of sustaining the life of a 'vegetable'. Right to life advocates will flock to the first interpretation, while right to die advocates will follow the second interpretation.

I believe that a doctor's default paradigm should be that of saving lives, but the doctor should cede to a patient's wishes for death if the patient, in full rational capability, wills it. In Terri's case, her actual say in the matter is almost impossible to determine due to her many 'spokespersons'. I do believe though, that Terri should have been given rehabilitative medicine because no conclusive evidence exists that she would have wanted otherwise. Tests performed on her in the later stages of this case presented that she positively responded to attempts of rehabilitation, I don't think a vegetable, or a person who has lost the will to live, would have done likewise

Quote :

2. After careful considerations of the various ethical theories/views we discussed, what “personal moral system or code” can you come up with and which you can adopt? Be sure to talk about the values, precepts/ideas, and other elements that should comprise this “personal moral system or code”. Include your conception of freedom and accountability in this given moral system and your view of what it means to be a moral individual.

I am of the opinion that whatever ethical or moral system that a person adopts is a choice made by that individual. Call a person Kantian, Utilitarian, Aristotelian, or whatever else, that person still made a choice to believe what he wanted to believe. This is a very Sartreian Existentialist point of view, and its relativist take on ethics would, at first glance, probably result in chaos, in a whole general mish mash of ideas with no "one true path," but isn't that what we have right now?

The idea that one is free to do whatever one can, may lead to wanton acts of a negative nature, until one recognizes that other people are also free to do what they can, and one's actions have consequences. It is then that one should ask himself, "If I do this, would I be able to live with the consequences? In the long run, would it have been worth it?" A rational person with a true sense of personal responsibility would do actions that will not cause himself harm of any nature, and I believe one can harm one's self through harming others.

This idea is still half-formed, and I do admit to any flaws that may be found in it, but it makes the most sense to me. One chooses what to believe and what to do. There is no true ethical system than the one you create yourself. The only true Kantian was Kant, all others put their own personal take on his ideas; the same goes for any other philosopher. Martin Luther told people that if they were to sin, they should SIN BOLDLY, and not excuse themselves.