30 seconds of the arrest, the mother orders the physician to intubate. The physician looks to the patient as he shakes his head indicating that he does not want to be intubated, the physician also is aware that the patient will be 18 years old in three weeks.Initially it appears as if the dilemma revolves around what the physician’s next move should be. When actually the real dilemma is who owns the rights to make this life or death decision. It is clear what the patient wants for his course of treatment. It is equally clear what his mother will allow his treatment to be. Each has equally selfish reasons for wanting their decision to be upheld. The mother does not want to lose her son and will at all costs keep him alive. She feels he is romanticizing death and has no real concept of what dying means. Her son lived with cystic fibrosis since age four and has seen many of his friends placed on ventilators only to later die. He does not want that quality of life in his final days. The physician is supportive of the patient’s request but is placed in an awkward legal position if he abides by the patients request. The nurse who has acted as an intermediary throughout this entire process continues to acts as a patient advocate and ensure the patients rights are observed and that his wishes are acknowledged.Contemporary Utilitarianism is divided into four basic principles, each principle will be used to analyze this dilemma. The first principle considers which action will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number. As we look at the action in this case the patient should not be allowed to discontinue treatment because his mother and girlfriend do not wish for him to die. This action does not provide the greatest good and it appears that the patient loses by a vote of two to one.The second principle is based on what the consequences of this action are, not what or how it’s done but how the chosen action affects ...
