In medical ethics where one is faced with a tough decision that touches on other people’s life, it could be very difficult to reach a decision because ethics require that the action leads to a consequence that benefits the majority of people as much as possible. In utilitarian, making a decision or doing something that would benefit the majority of people is considered morally correct and that itself whether ethical or not does not matter (Jackson 1997).
In this case the benefit to others or the damage that would result from an activity is what forms the basis on which decisions can be made. When faced with the decision to withhold food and fluid to a dying patient or that patient who does not indicate improvement signs, a utilitarian would say that since the patients condition could be irreversible, and the family members are agonizing seeing that there is no improvement, their loved one is suffering plus the fact that the medical bills keep going up, it would be better to withhold food and fluid.
This is because in so doing, the patient will be saved from further suffering as he o she would succumb to the dehydration and starvation, the medical bills will be reduced and the family and relatives would mourn for the loss once and for all rather than seeing their loved one suffer for long and still come to die in the end (Thelan et al 1990). A utilitarian may also think that living a poor life where one depend on others for everything from being cleaned to feeding artificial nutrition as not worth living.
For this reason it would be in the best interests to save them one responsible for the patients of further efforts. Deontologists view this as a mechanical way of thought (Gert et al 1997). In utilitarian way of thinking, each activity is evaluated based on the outcome alone and any action leading to contentment of the majority is considered ethical for instance, one can kill a potential murderer who could otherwise have killed you or many other people and still walk away free of blame since utilitarian would consider it as ethical.
It the current world where technology is growing very fast and the policies to revive economy are implemented in every department, most people have adopted the utilitarian mode of thinking because of the cost benefit discourses that are associated with it. The big question affecting both theories is that which is the best alternative? (Utilitarian or deontology) since both have their disadvantages and have face several weighty criticisms (Gert et al 1997).
Moral acts are determined by moral laws which ethical activities that can be unanimously acceptable. Moral law is given to us by affirming that we are doing the right thing only for the sake of it and this is what makes everyone else a moral agent as this makes us autonomous. According to deontology this is the most morally appropriate verity in the whole universe. The greatest worth in the world is the existence of a balanced being which can question what is termed right and wrong and can make a decision about the moral law.
Pros and Cons Withholding food and fluid comes with its own advantages and disadvantages in that the positive and the negative impact can be determined depending on the circumstances in which it was done and the type of ethical theory used to evaluate the consequences. For instance a deontologist would see it as an advantage when food is not withheld because life is sustained while utilitarian would see it as exposing more people to a long period of psychological and physical suffering (Escott-Stump 2008).
The common advantages of withholding food include; the cost of medical expenses is reduced, the suffering of the ill is terminated, the family and relatives will be relinquished of some responsibility as the victim passes on, emotional stress and other psychological agony of watching a loved deteriorate health wise is reduced and a multiple of other problems are solved.
Disadvantages of withholding food include denying the victim human rights and exposing him or her to suffering, it looks immorally and unethical, the dignity and respect of an individual is infringed as the victims may have no say in what is going on around and finally withholding is likened to killing (Jackson 1997). Personal Value Personal values like self esteem, respect dignity and sanctity of life are important in humanity and ought to be respected by everyone at all costs since they have intrinsic worth which cannot be quantified in terms of money.
However it is sometimes very necessary to defy such norms especially when observing them would cause suffering and pain to other people (Perrin. & McGhee 2001). Conclusion Withholding food and fluids is done by not giving food to the victim whether hand-feeding or tube feeding. The victims are primarily those in critical condition and cannot communicate especially coma and permanent vegetative state. A person may take about 40 days to die due to dehydration and starvation. There has been controversy over withholding food to allow a patient die naturally and initiating death in Euthanasia as these two are considered to be the same.
Withholding food is just like initiating death because if the food is given the patient lives on.
References
Ashwanden P. (1990). Oncology Nursing. Advances, Treatments, and Trends into the 21st Century. Aspen Publishers Escott-Stump S. (2008). Nutrition and Diagnosis Related Care. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. George S. K (2005). The Moral Philosophy of John Steinbeck. Scarecrow Press Gert B. , Culver C. M & Clouser K. D (1997). Bioethics. A Return to Fundamentals. Oxford University Press