Question

How would someone respond to this situation using the ethical principles of: (Respond using the principles of RAWLSIAN? Scenario #1 "This gentleman is Ethan Zinker," Dr. Clara Woods said. She bent over the bed and put her stethoscope to the chest of the elderly man. He stirred but showed no sign of waking. "He's got pneumonia," Dr. Woods said, straightening up. "But aside for being ninety-two years old, and having lost a few of his marbles, nothing else is wrong with him. If we treated him aggressively with antibiotics, he might live for another six or eight years. Maybe more." She shrugged. "But we're only controlling his fever and keeping him comfortable." "How come you're not giving him antibiotics?" Dr. Robert Elias was shocked. He was Morningside Hospital's new bioethicist and it was his first morning of making rounds with Dr. Woods. "I mean, he has a life-threatening disease that usually responds well to therapy." "Right," Dr. Woods said, nodding. "But he's also got an advanced directive that tells us in no uncertain terms not to intervene." She flipped through the chart until she located the social worker's report. "He was the Powell professor of physics at Columbia. A very smart guy, he couldn't stand the idea of not being mentally sharp and active." "So he said if he began to fail mentally, then if he needed treatment to keep him alive, he didn't want to have it." Dr.Elias was beginning to understand. "Exactly," Dr. Woods said. "But the funny thing is, when he started to get senile and moved into the nursing home, he quite liked it." She smiled. "He couldn't recognize his daughter most of the time, but he knows the people he lives with and sees everyday. He's made a couple of friends, and according to these notes, he like watching reruns of X-Files." "He should be treated," Dr. Elias said flatly. "The idea of not treating someone who is evidently enjoying life struck him as very wrong." "I think so, too," Dr. Woods said. "The only right course of action is to ignore the advance directive and treat him. Let's face it, Professor Zinker didn't know what his life would be like now when he gave his directive. It wouldn't be a good life for him the way he used to be, but that's not the way he is now." His expression turned grim. "He needs to be treated, before it's too late to help him." ***************************************************************************** Ethan Zinker is a 92 year old former professor who filled out an advanced directive indicating that he wanted no further medical treatments if he began to fail mentally. He had done so, becoming senile, but had also indicated that he liked the nursing home and his life there. He now has pneumonia. Should he be given anti-biotics and be kept alive or not? Should his advanced directive be respected or ignored? How would someone respond to this situation using the ethical principles of: (Respond using the principles of RAWLSIAN?  

Answer 1

Answer. Rawlsian law considers the concept of overlapping the generalised approach of advanced directive above the rigid theoretical approach to it. It means that it can be sidelined, if the conditions or the situations are favorable.

According to this law, the advance directive of former professor Ethan Zinker can be overseen and the treatment of antibiotics can be started to ensure his big life span, because his body can accept the high doses of antibiotics thereby treating his illness and curing him to a healthy life. The rule or law of giving opportunity to someone to live will help in making the decision to skip the advance directive and continue the treatment.