Brophy Case Study
The unfortunate case of Paul Brophy should immediately remind people of the very similar case of Terry Schiavo and how that case ended up. Indeed, Mr. Brophy is in a persistent vegetative state due to an artery bursting in his brain. His life can technically be maintained through a feeding tube and other medical equipment but he is not "terminal" in the usually used sense of the word in that he is not near death so long as he is fed. However, his chances of every regaining normal brain function, which he has lost, are zero according to medical professionals. As such, the family wanted to let him go but the medical professionals resisted. While this decision may seem like an easy one to make, it is not remotely easy and for a number of reasons.
Analysis
One important piece of information regarding this case is that happened in 1983 with the legal part of the matter culminating in 1985. As noted in the introduction, the perceived possibility of Brophy regaining consciousness, let alone resuming a normal functioning life, was deemed to be zero. Given this, the family (including the wife of the victim) wanted to end his life as his quality of life was moot. However, a court-appointed attorney as well as the hospital asserted that removing the feeding tube and allowing the patient to die was "ethically" and "morally" wrong as this would be "starving" the patient (Malcom, 1985). Questions like this posed a lot in the field of bioethics (Beachamp & Childress, 2013). However, while some may think that the Christian or other similar faiths would support sustaining and not ending Brophy's life, one perspective on the case was a reverend by the name of John J. Paris. A Jesuit and ethics professor at Holy Cross College, he asserted that it was the sustaining of Brophy's life that was immoral. He likened it to propping up a storm-damaged tree that is not able to survive on its down devices and thus must be allowed to...
The direct harm the other individual ultimately determines the rightness or wrongness of the individual's actions and decisions. Applied in the Schiavo case, deontology then considers the decision to deprive Schiavo of the feeding tubes that sustains her life as not a permissible act. It is true that with Schiavo's death, both her husband and family will not be aggrieved or directly harmed with her death; instead, both parties will
Both sides of the Terry Schiavo case wanted to make the most morally correct decision. The side in favor of terminating life support assumed that Terry Schiavo herself would not have wanted to live indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state, especially given the financial and emotional burden placed on her family and society. The side in favor of terminating life support also assumed that had Terry been able to speak
Terri Schiavo suffered an acute brain injury that left her in a persistent vegetative state, with almost no chance of recovery. Eight years later, after numerous efforts to rehabilitate her, her husband, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Florida court to remove her feeding tube, thus allowing her die. Although he was her legal guardian, Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, argued that she was still conscious and that letting her
Terri On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered from severe brain injury. She could no longer do anything for herself and was without an attorney. Her husband named Michael Schiavo was her legal guardian. Due to brain damage, Ms. Schiavo did not have the ability to swallow and was feed through a feeding tube. During that same year, she entered into a persistent vegetative state (PVS). As years passed, Mr.
Terry Schiavo died, she had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than ten years. Her husband claimed that Terry "wouldn't have wanted to live in her condition," and had legal guardianship over his wife in her condition ("Terry Schiavo Has Died," 2005). Although Terry's parents' feelings are valid and they do matter, it is clear that the courts made the right decision. There are many reasons why
business strategy class, group assigned a case study. It a 12-20-page paper, responsibility write 4 pages, part write. Here teacher instruction: "A case study assigned group. Additionally a rubric showing material case study included. Ethics: Euthanasia Recently, a young woman dying of brain cancer in Queens was forced to engage in a legal struggle with her own parents to 'win' the 'right to die. "Paralyzed from the waist down, the 28-year-old
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now