Should children or spouses withhold life support to loved ones when it Essay

Should children or spouses withhold life support to loved ones when it is evident that the loved one will never get better or en - Essay Example When family members find themselves in the throes of deciding whether or not to pull their loved one off of life support, instead of fully considering reason and the facts, they prefer to hold on to the hope that their loved one will get better over time. They tend to allow themselves to be controlled by questions of ‘what if’, feeling that it will always be too soon to make the decision with the hopes that maybe all their loved one needs is just a little more time. Nowadays, doctors and neurologists are able to determine the outcome of the patient in regard to quality of life, but family members often throw aside the facts and decide on just to wait and hope. There are others that also believe that it would be considered murder to pull their family members off of life support, a grueling concept that is argued on both sides. The line between ethical and unethical becomes very thin in a situation such as this. Nevertheless, there are some family members that would simply rather not see their loved one barely alive and unable to ever enjoy life. To them, there is no purpose to life when life cannot be properly enjoyed. This, perhaps, is the best way to look a situation of this nature. If a person is on life support without the hope of getting better or being able to enjoy their life, it would be more ethical to not allow them to continue to suffer, because suffering is all that they are doing. Family members are sometimes inclined to keep their loved ones on life support without considering how that person will actually benefit from it, if they can benefit from it at all. â€Å"Once a person reaches a state of vegetation, it takes a miracle for them to come out of it (Freeman, pg. 92)†. Many people require therapy, and even these patients do not go on to lead normal, productive lives. Parts of their brain are still unable to function to let them be aware of their surroundings. When it comes to contemplating whether or not to keep a person on life support, the case of Terri Schiavo is often considered. In 1990, Schiavo collapsed in her home from cardiac arrest, suffering massive brain damage; after a few months in the hospital, she was considered to be in a vegetative state, completely unaware of anything around her, even though she would occasionally respond to certain stimuli. She remained on life support for a few years, undergoing various therapies with the hope that she could be brought back to a state of awareness. Eight years later, when there was no sign or hope of improvement, her husband appealed to have her feeding tube removed, which would ultimately end her life. Schiavo’s estranged parents did not agree with this, and a battle ensued. The argument on the behalf of Schiavo’s parents was that Schiavo was still conscious, while her husband’s argument was that she was unaware of anything going on and she never would come out of this state. It was pointless to keep her alive because she woul d never be able to enjoy life. Indeed, no other option would exist for her except to be bedridden and attached to tubes to keep her alive. This was another