OPPOSITION

Many including Weijer (1999) comment on the futility of the current medical system as established in the United States. There are many doctors making decisions on whether patients need life support with or without just cause. Here lies the problem. With all patients, not just patients with disabilities, the writer feels multiple considerations must come into play. Right to life types may suggest it is the patient's right to live and the physician has an obligation to maintain the life of the patient for as long as feasible (Freeborn, Lynn & Desbiens, 2000). There are others however concerned that certain patients are not given appropriate consideration.

For example, some patients with disabilities may not be given adequate consideration. In cases as these doctors may feel they are better able to understand what is and is not in the patient's best interests compared with the wishes of the patient and/or their family (Weijer, 1999). It is important that such issues are handled in an ethical and moral manner so the patient's best interests, not the healthcare facility, caregiver or family's personal wishes are carried out for their own best interests.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to withhold life-sustaining hydration and nutrition is one charged with controversy, and is one that is likely to remain so for years to come, as evidenced by recent research including that conducted in disabled populations by Werth (2005) for this case study. It is important given the knowledge and information consumers have today that doctors, patients and family members consider the consequences of their decision and their indecision.

The author of this paper feels given the information provided by this case study, and after reviewing the opposing views, that it would be in the best interests of...

Some considerations to this extent may include for example, ensuring the patient or consumer is not in pain and that their life is not ended for selfish reasons (as may be the case as Werth hints, in populations where the individual in question is disabled).
This case study introduces an interesting premise, one that may allow family members of critically ill or injured patients to talk about issues including life and death in the event the health of the patient declines at any given time. Even then, it is important that doctors do not have the authority to override the wishes of the patients, as sometimes occurs within hospitals (Freeborne, Lynn & Desbiens, 2000). The author feels that the federal and state governments should discuss these issues and consider the interests of the majority but also the minority population when making laws that ultimately dictate the way one lives their life, receives healthcare when needed, and the way one decides to die when appropriate. This case study proved enlightening and provided the author an interesting vantage on the subject of life-sustaining and withholding measures.