Ethical Analysis

Background

Mr. Timothy Bowers, a 32-year-old man from Indiana experienced a severe spinal injury, resulting in paralysis, after a fall from a tree stand during a hunting trip. Having been woken from a medically induced coma, Mr. Bowers chose to be taken off life support. He did not wish to live life bound to a wheelchair, unable to hold his soon-to-be-born child or engage in physical activity, both of which were important to him. The scenario describes how Mr. Bower’s wife and belief systems were consistent with his decision. Following an ethical analysis, I believe Mr. Bowers was correctly afforded the right to make his own decision. The decision he made was in line with his position prior to the accident, exhibiting his competence, belief system and fair ethics at play.

Arguments in support of your position 

It is essential to consider how beneficence should be applied to Mr. Bowers’ case. Assuming competence (not discussed in the scenario), it is important to respect the patient’s wishes, especially as they aligned with his dignity and faith, letting him avoid a life he found unacceptable. Supporting his decision ensured beneficence by obtaining death and rest as a more peaceful state of existence for Mr. Bowers. 

Similarly, if medical practitioners were to have kept Mr. Bowers on life support against his wishes, it would have extended the suffering and distress he feared from living with paralysis. Stopping life support secured the principle of nonmaleficence by avoiding potentially painful treatments for his spinal cord injury which can persist for years (Cardenas & Felix, 2009).

Perhaps most important in this scenario is Mr. Bowers’s right to make an informed decision. It’s clear that he understood his medical condition and the impact that his decision would have. His choice aligned well with his personal beliefs and values, shaped by his religious faith and parts of life he valued highly. Autonomy was upheld by allowing Mr. Bowers to make his own decision. 

Finally, there is an aspect of justice behind giving Mr. Bowers control and respecting his unique situation. There will also be a reduced workload on his wife, family and friends versus a situation in which they would have to support and sustain him living a life fully paralyzed. Furthermore, medical and life-supporting resources can go elsewhere to those who do actively chose life over death. 

Arguments against your position

However, one might argue that deciding quickly denied Mr. Bowers time to process his situation. Rushing into such a drastic decision may lead to the possibility of overlooking opportunities for emotional support or other paths that could improve his quality of life. Many people with lifelong paralysis and spinal cord injuries indicate a upward turn in quality of life from 6 weeks to 2 years after injury which such a quick decision does not allow for (Lude et. al., 2014).

Concerning nonmaleficencec critics of Mr. Bower’s situation might suggest that waking him from a coma and confronting him with such a significant choice right away was harmful in and of itself. Such comas can produce agitation, anxiety and confusion upon awakening (Lewis, 2022). It could be argued that harm was done in both the short and long term by allowing him to make this decision in the moment.

There may be scrutiny over whether Mr. Bowers could truly make an informed decision so soon after his traumatic accident. Due to potential emotional distress, there may be concerns regarding his full competence which would call into question the principle of full patient autonomy. 

As far as ethical justice is concerned, allowing Mr. Bowers to make a quick decision might lead to similar fast decisions in other cases, setting a precedent of rushed decision making over careful consideration. In Mr. Bower’s context, we must also consider the impact on his wife and family, particularly the unborn child who will now grow up without a father.

Ethical Balancing Tests 

It is clear that Mr. Bowers’ decision reflected his personal values, prioritizing dignity and spiritual peace over living a life he considered limited. His faith supported his informed decision-making process, and it is therefore in his best interest to avoid prolonging sub-standard life as far as he is concerned.

Mr. Bowers focused on the quality rather than the length of life and chose not to live in a condition he found unacceptable. He acknowledged the limits paralysis placed on roles and activities that he knew to be meaningful to him. Weighing the quality and quantity of life was a fundamental part of his decision. 

His choice was made with full understanding of his prognosis and the medical implications, aligning with ethical standards on informed consent. The medical indication policies at play evaluate factors influencing his decision. 

His permanent paralysis and reduced life expectancy were significant reasons that supported the ethical removal of life support, further exhibiting Mr. Bower’s competency and understanding of his decision’s ramifications. 

Decision and Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. Bowers was correctly allowed to make his own decision to end the life support treatment. This decision was ethically justifiable, respecting his autonomy and values while avoiding further harm. It is vital dignity and freedom are maintained, and this case underscores the need for clear communication, honoring patient autonomy, and respecting personal perspectives in end-of-life decisions.