Stage I. Presentation
1. Present the problem
a. Identify the issue
b. Define the moral
situation
2. Collect information
a. List morally
relevant facts
b. List non-moral
relevant facts (e.g., legal, economic, psychological, etc.)
Stage II.
Analysis
3. List relevant
values
a. Identify moral
values important to persons in the case (e.g., Integrity, Respect for Persons,
Compassion, Justice, Beneficence/Nonmaleficence, Responsibility)
b. Identify non-moral
values important to persons in the case (e.g., economic, intellectual, social,
spiritual, etc.)
c. Identify possible
value conflicts. (Is there a true ethical conflict, or a conflict between
ethical and other values?
4. Explore options
a. How do different
theories interpret and apply the relevant values? (e.g. care, consequentialist,
duty, narrative, rights, virtue)
b. Which options are
favored by more than one theory?
5. Assess
rightness/wrongness of various outcomes
a. Option 1
b. Option 2
c. Option 3
6. Decide which option
solves the moral problem
Stage III. Review
7. Defend the decision
a. Give reasons to
explain the decision.
b. Assess the strength
of the reasons (relevant, consider all affected persons, consider central moral
values).
8. Reflect
a. What objections can be made to the decision?
b. How could this
problem have been avoided?
In this case, a woman named Marlise Munoz was declared brain dad while 14 weeks into pregnancy. She was attached to medical life support equipment at the time. When the widower Erick Munoz requested she be unhooked, the hospital refused citing a Texas law preventing such an action on a pregnant patient.
ReplyDeleteMorally, should a patient be kept on life support (even if there is no possibility of becoming healthy again or if the patient is already deceased) purely for the fetus that is developing inside? Does the potential life of the fetus have priority over the discomfort of the patient or the patient's family?
a. Marlise Munoz was a pregnant woman from Texas who was reportedly brain-dead. Her family wished that she be removed from life support because it was painful for them to bear and they wished to continue on with burial and so forth. However, because she was pregnant Texas law stated that they cannot do so until the baby could be delivered. The child in utero may have suffered some loss of oxygen in the event but was alive.
ReplyDeleteb. The moral question here is whether the woman should be taken off life support, resulting in the death of the baby, because it is the wish of her family? How far and under what means should the hospital/family go in an attempt to save the child?
a. The family of Marlise Muñoz, a pregnant woman who has been brain dead since November, has pleaded for her to be removed from life support. Against the hospital’s wishes, a judge has granted this request. Prior to the ruling, the hospital held firm to the Texas law which states that medical officials are prohibited from withdrawing life support from a pregnant patient. The judge, though, believed that this law could not be applied to Marlise’s situation, because she was already presumably dead.
ReplyDeleteb. The moral situation which arises from this case addresses whether or not it is ethical to essentially terminate a pregnancy by removing Marlise from life support. We must also determine, though, whether keeping her on life support to give the unborn child the best possible chance of survival is morally wrong in that it’s growing inside the body of a dead woman.
a. List morally relevant facts
ReplyDeleteIs terminating life support for Marlise Muñoz the morally right decision? Should a fetus affect whether life support is removed? How much importance should be place upon Marlise's wishes since there is a fetus to consider? Would Marlise's wishes have been different had she made the decision when she was pregnant?
b. List non-moral relevant facts (e.g., legal, economic, psychological, etc.)
"Section 166.049 states, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.” But Marlise Muñoz was not a pregnant patient. She was dead, and therefore Section 166.049 is irrelevant."
a. List morally relevant facts
ReplyDeleteIs the hospital’s decision to keep Marlise Munoz on life support solely because of the fetus the morally right decision? Should the wishes of the family be considered even though the hospital deemed Marlise to be brain-dead and still kept her alive? Would Marlise want her future child to potentially live life without a mother, and would her husband feel that this is a morally good decision?
b. List morally irrelevant facts
The section that states the law is an arguable statement because Marlise was pregnant but not living, according to the hospital. Therefore, this law does not apply. Psychologically, if the baby were to survive birth and infancy, would the father and the family be able to care for and look at the child without thinking of the circumstances of his or her birth? Would the child be treated the way he or she deserves because of this? Is the sustainment of life support to financially burdensome on the family for it to continue, whether or not Marlise is pregnant?
Elliot, Tyler, Katie, Bekah
ReplyDeleteList relevant values
a. Identify moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., Integrity, Respect for Persons, Compassion, Justice, Beneficence/Nonmaleficence, Responsibility)
Respect for persons (the mother, the father, the child/fetus, health care professionals)
Justice = legal, distribution of resources
b. Identify non-moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., economic, intellectual, social, spiritual, etc.)
Economic = cost of care
Spiritual = beliefs about life
c. Identify possible value conflicts. (Is there a true ethical conflict, or a conflict between ethical and other values?
Justice/cost vs. autonomy vs. law
this case, a woman named Marlise Munoz was declared brain dad while 14 weeks into pregnancy. She was attached to medical life support equipment at the time. When the widower Erick Munoz requested she be unhooked, the hospital refused citing a Texas law preventing such an action on a pregnant patient.
ReplyDeletei believe that there are complications that i do not know about and cannot answer this question in a honest and caring sense but based on the knowledge that i know i believe that that pulling the plug is the best idea because the do not know the affects to the child
In this case the family and the courts made the correct decision. Taking care of a brain dead body trying to save a 14 month old fetus is going to be hard for both the family and the hospital and would cost them both alot of money. With that being said theres no guarantee that the baby would even survive the entire term.
ReplyDelete