What Is Barthling's Reasoning In The Karen Quinlan Case?

There are many things that go under consideration when end-of-life care comes into play. Things such as living wills, competency, right of autonomy, euthanasia, moral rights, etc., help in determining the appropriate way to approach end-of-life care. One famous case to consider is the case of William Bartling. The complexity of this case is great, but the help of medical ethics helps us to better understand.

The question presented is: Is there any merit to the hospital's position that to remove Mr. Bartling's respirator or to free his hands would be equivalent to assisting suicide? Munson states, "Increasingly, people want to be sure that they have some say in what happens to them should they fall victim to hopeless injury or illness" (Munson,

Bartling's case? Karen Quinlan ultimately suffered extensive brain damage. Her family and religious views opposed life sustaining measurements such as the respirator. Because she was over twenty-one years of age she had no legal guardianship over her. The Mr. Quinlan attempted to attain guardianship over Karen. The first attempt the court denied him of this right because she was medically and legally alive. Then second attempt the court ruled in favor that whatever Mr. Quinlan decided on her behalf be accepted by society. They weaned her off the respirator and she started breathing on her own, and it wasn't till ten years later that Karen Quinlan died. In contrast, Mr. Bartling was fully competent and aware of the potential risks of removing his respirator. Should he of been denied this right to discontinue life sustaining support? Rachels states, "The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient" (Rachels, p. 586). Therefore, if Mr. Bartling is consenting that withholding treatment is desired, yet the physician is denying him that right of interest of his life. The differences is that is was confirmed that Karen had excessive brain damage, yet Mr. Bartling had full competency allowing him to decide for himself what the best course of action

Bartling's request be honored? Mr. Bartling repeatedly requested that the respirator be removed because it was causing him pain. With that being said, the principle of nonmaleficence can be used as grounds on honoring his request. If a physician is not to cause needless harm to a patient then how is denying him this request justified? Munson states, "In addition, we can expect them to posses the knowledge and skills relevant to the proper discharge of their duties" (Munson, p. 892). We entrust health care professionals to never cause us unnecessary harm. Munson also states, "Failure to meet the standards opens practitioners (physicians, nurses, dentists, therapists) to the charge of moral or legal maleficence" (Munson, p. 893). Therefore, if certain standards are not met then health care professionals alike can be rightfully accused of maleficence. As society, we try to take measures and enforce things such as degree programs, licensing laws, and certifying boards (Munson, p.893). But, we cannot always be certain that those persons who pass these measures will apply those knowledge and skills obtained to make medically ethic sound decisions. The principle of nonmaleficence has certain regulations to be considered in violation of the principle or not. Altogether, the grounds of nonmaleficence might honor the request of Mr. Bartling's hands being