Legal & Ethical Principles in Healthcare

Running head: LEGAL & ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTHCARE
Legal & Ethical Principles in Healthcare
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

LEGAL & ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTHCARE 1
Legal & Ethical Principles in Healthcare
Introduction
The highly debated issue of morality of life and euthanasia has gained momentum in the
recent past due to advancements in medical field. The natural method of dying for people with
terminal diseases has changed because people can be placed on artificial life-sustaining support
when for long periods even when they lack the ability to support themselves. There have been,
however, cases where the moral beliefs on life conflict with the scientific understanding about
keeping people in a vegetative state on life support machines. People in a vegetative are not
conscious of their environment and cannot move due to damage to the brain or other factors that
make it impossible for the brain to receive sufficient oxygen (QUT End of Life Law in Australia,
2019). The case of Richard is an example of dilemmas that medical professions face when
dealing with patients that are at the end of life. The life support technology has complicated the
moral law of life, considering that people can be kept in a vegetative state longer. This paper
discusses ethical issues linked to withdrawal of artificial life-sustaining for Richard. The paper
also discusses legal procedure that may be used to justify the decision in Australia.
Ethical Issues in Withdrawing Life-sustaining Support
The primary concern when discussing withdrawal of artificial life support for patients in
a vegetative state is that it attracts a collision in values from religious beliefs and scientific
evidence. Meryl is opposed to withdrawal of artificial life sustaining support because of her
values on sacredness and sanctity of life. Proponents of this belief argue that life is sacred and it
is only God that can withdraw it. According to Goligher et al. (2017), religious beliefs limit
people’s beliefs on matters of euthanasia. Euthanasia is a painless killing of a person in an
irreversible state of coma due to compassion for the pain the person is going through as well as

LEGAL & ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTHCARE 2
to relieve the family from emotional and financial stress (Hamilton, Shahaduz, Sandy, & David,
2017). Sometimes the family members are opposed to this process because they consider it as
deliberate murder. Meryl is primarily concerned about Richard and thinks that withdrawal of
life-sustaining support is a form of murder, which is against her belief towards sanctity of life.
Unlike Meryl, Lucas is an ardent supporter of patients’ autonomy and believes that it is
important to respect Richard’s wish. He says that Richard had once emphasized that he would
not wish to be left in a vegetative state if he ever suffered from an accident. Lucas had seen the
damage on Richard’s brain and is convinced that Richard will never gain consciousness. A study
by Chakraborty et al. (2017) found that respecting people’s autonomy in palliative care allows
them to die in peace. According to Queensland Law Handbook (2016), medical ethics requires
respect for people to choose what they deem right for them. In this case, Richard had wished that
it would be better if the machine was switched off when he was in a vegetative state. The
principle of autonomy requires that all people above the age of sixteen years in Australia have
the right to make decisions on their own. According to the case scenario, Richard was physically
fit when he visited the hospital. According to Sigley (2016), proponents of patients’ autonomy
believe that every person has to die in dignity. Lucas believes that leaving a person in a
vegetative state is embarrassing and a burden to the family. This is a similar belief that may have
been held by Richard when he said that he would not wish to remain in a vegetative state.
The difference in views between Meryl and Lucas has a significant impact on their views
on Richard’s treatment. Lucas will champion for termination of treatment because he is a
proponent of people’s dignity and autonomy. Lucas will argue that termination of Richard’s
treatment will relieve the family of stress of watching their loved one suffer as well as relieve
them of financial stress and resources (Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, and Ely, 2016). Death

LEGAL & ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTHCARE 3
should occur naturally. Keeping people on artificial life sustaining support reduces their dignity
(Lamers & Williams, 2016). It is for this reason that Richard will argue for withdrawal of the life
sustaining support because it is not adding value to the patient. Compared to Lucas, Meryl’s
belief will compel her to extended use of artificial life support even when the patient is not
making progress. She believes that her husband will recover when placed on medication for a
longer period. She is also a staunch believer of natural death, hence will not allow the withdrawal
of artificial life-sustaining support.
In spite of the positions held by Meryl and Lucas, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights has set principles that dictate how the case scenario of Richard could be
handled. Two of the principles from the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
are discussed here. Article three of UNESCO (2019) declares respect on human dignity and
human rights. It states that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be fully respected. In
this case, the fundamental right is right to life. This principle could support both Meryl’s position
and Lucas’ position on withdrawal of the life support treatment. The patient has the right to life
and nobody should lift this right until it occurs naturally. From Lucas’ point of view, one could
explain that Richard has right to dignity and he should not be left in a vegetative state.
Article five focuses on respect for autonomy and individual responsibility. For vulnerable
individuals, one has to take specific measures to protect their autonomy. This principle sides with
Lucas’ position who argues that Richard has requested to be treated with dignity. Since Richard
is in unconscious state, his rights and interests have to be respected accordingly. A substitute
decision maker should make the decision that Richard could have made if he was capable of
talking. This person could be Lucas because he spent enough time with him at the workplace.
Legal Issues in Withdrawing Life-sustaining Support