2007-10-19 03:55:32 · 11 answers · asked by marrie 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I don't think there is no simple yes or no answer to this question. A lot would depend on the exact medical prognosis, odds of recovery, brain damage involved, and any _verifiable_ prior statements by the patient as to their wishes either way. Depending on the circumstances, I could think of some instances where it would be clearly immoral to unplug someone, and other instances where it would be clearly immoral NOT to unplug someone. And of course, in between a whole lot of gray space.
2007-10-19 04:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is a sticky question. Personally I would NOT want to be kept alive if I were in a "persistant vegitative state". This is recognizing that I'm not independantly wealthy enough to be maintained as a lump of flesh, nor is my extended family so wealthy that they could afford it on my behalf without creating hardship.
Additionally there are the medical resources -- all the way from hospital beds to nursing care to medicine consumed to food resources -- that would be much better spent on someone who is not in a persistant vegitative state.
I do not believe that I have a "right to life" if my life has to be artifically maintained with things like feeding tubes, respirators and so when in that persistant state. A deep coma that is not a vegitative state and is not persistant over a year or two... sure. There may be a benefit to keeping me going. But if there is no reasonable chance of recover, don't waste precious resources that can be better spend elsewhere and don't bankrupt my family to do it either. I don't find wastefulness or bankrupting families very moral either.
2007-10-19 05:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by Nimaeve 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. The first question you ahve to ask yourself is are they enjoying life? the answer is welll... we can;t be sure but probably not.
question 2) ok then, so we don;t knwo if they enjoy life or not- do they cause problems? yes!! they cost the money and medical supllies ot maintain as well as doctors time and hospital beds (or NHS money in Britain)
question 3) what are the chances of their recovery? negligable if any at all.
question 4) let us say the odds are stacked up adn this person in a vegatative state IS enjoying life and miraculously DOES return to full health- is it worth holding up all that money, benefits etc. for the 1 in a million chance? nope
by this reasoning it cannot be immoral.
2007-10-19 05:09:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You suggest to yourself that it is immoral to give someone in a vegetative state a feeding tube. You tell me, I'm not caught up in right and wrong.
2007-10-19 04:50:03 · answer #4 · answered by The Witten 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If the brain is gone, what is the point of keeping the body alive?
Personally, if I were in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery, I'd want to be in Oregon where I could legally get euthanized.
2007-10-19 04:12:04 · answer #5 · answered by magicalpossibilities 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes,it is immoral.Just because the person can not speak or move like a normal person does not mean that they're not there.Removing the feeding tube would just slowly starve them to death.They would feel every horrible second of it.The bad thing is that they can not protest and say what they think about you slowly starving them to death.
2007-10-19 04:08:29 · answer #6 · answered by Beka14 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
morality is dependent on ones hierarchy of values, if you value suffering above all, than become a Christian and pray instead. If you value a good life above all, pull the damn plug!
Why is it humane to put an animal out of it's misery, but not a human?
2007-10-19 04:27:46 · answer #7 · answered by Real Friend 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what school of morality are you talking about? There are many.
2007-10-19 04:27:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, it isnt. by then, the soul has usually left the body.
2007-10-19 15:56:22 · answer #9 · answered by Critterspeak 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe if it is done from pure love it is not wrong.
2007-10-19 04:06:03 · answer #10 · answered by sandra b 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋