If he's as dim as the parents
Toss the coin and be done with it.
John Brown has been badly injured in a motorbike accident and is now in a coma. Dr Doe informs his parents that there’s no chance of recovery. Mrs Brown thinks there’s hope. (What a modern parent – she denies the truth about her child.) The doctor explains further that although John can be kept alive, he’s using up real estate and resources. She lets them think about it.
The hospital philosopher, Dr Gnatt, then comes and visits the Browns to determine what John might’ve wanted depending on his philosophy and beliefs. Since Mr and Mrs Brown haven’t the faintest, Dr Gnatt outlines their two choices: keep the machine on or turn it off. He gets a coin out of his pocket and asks, “Heads or tails?”
What should the Browns reply?
Of course, it’d be unethical to toss a coin to make such a decision, but if the parents were stupid enough to let their son own a motorbike, then this is an easy and impartial way to make a decision about their son. I suppose the dilemma is between the hospital’s duty to maintain life and the best use of resources. My choice would be to switch John off because he’s merely alive but has no true life beyond that. I wouldn’t consider that the hospital’s resources could be used better, although I might argue, if I took such a position, that others, who have a better chance of recovery, should be the priority. Nonetheless, I’d be reluctant to argue in favour of the thing rather than the person, and with the latter, my main consideration would be the quality of life.
The hospital philosopher, Dr Gnatt, then comes and visits the Browns to determine what John might’ve wanted depending on his philosophy and beliefs. Since Mr and Mrs Brown haven’t the faintest, Dr Gnatt outlines their two choices: keep the machine on or turn it off. He gets a coin out of his pocket and asks, “Heads or tails?”
What should the Browns reply?
Of course, it’d be unethical to toss a coin to make such a decision, but if the parents were stupid enough to let their son own a motorbike, then this is an easy and impartial way to make a decision about their son. I suppose the dilemma is between the hospital’s duty to maintain life and the best use of resources. My choice would be to switch John off because he’s merely alive but has no true life beyond that. I wouldn’t consider that the hospital’s resources could be used better, although I might argue, if I took such a position, that others, who have a better chance of recovery, should be the priority. Nonetheless, I’d be reluctant to argue in favour of the thing rather than the person, and with the latter, my main consideration would be the quality of life.
That’s the last of the medical dramas for the time being. Tomorrow (or whenever), we’re onto censorship, which is timely considering that Live Journal, that vile threat to the harmony and stability of this inherently self-destructive country, has been blocked again.
Comments