The only motivation of the parents would be to spare their child from an existence that would either be devoid of any meaningful quality of life or, even worse, an existence of constant discomfort, pain, and confusion. The objective test would be whether or not the prognosis of the patient is either persistent vegetative state or consistent with conditions that reasonable, competent people typically specify they would want to avoid. If competent adults typically choose to direct their loved ones not to continue treatment or to resort to artificial means to maintain biological life, it is perfectly moral for benevolently-motivated parents to want to spare their child that type of existence. The actions of the father were not legal and would not have been moral if they had been motivated by self-interest (such as to collect life insurance or to avoid the medical costs and obligations associated with caring for the child), but if his genuine motivation was benevolent concern for his son, his actions would have been morally pure in an objective sense. Schiavo and Cruzan Cases:...
Do they then have the same answer?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