Enforced death: enforced life

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics
• Philosophy of Medicine

Background:

• The concept of 'quality of life' is central to ethical debates concerning patient care at life's beginning and end.
• A critical analysis reveals a significant disjunction in how 'quality of life' is applied in these distinct contexts.
• This inconsistency raises profound ethical questions about medical decision-making and patient autonomy.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine the divergent application of 'quality of life' criteria in neonatal intensive care versus end-of-life care for adults.
• To highlight the ethical implications of using 'quality of life' to justify non-treatment or hastened death for disabled infants.
• To analyze the ethical paradox where quality of life arguments are dismissed for terminally ill adults seeking hastened death.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of ethical frameworks surrounding 'quality of life'.
• Comparative review of case studies and ethical guidelines for neonatal and adult end-of-life care.
• Philosophical argumentation on the consistency and justification of ethical principles.

Main Results:

• 'Quality of life' is used to justify withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment for disabled newborns, often deeming them 'better off dead'.
• Conversely, for terminally ill adults who wish to die due to poor quality of life, this principle is frequently disregarded, leading to enforced life.
• This creates a stark ethical inconsistency in medical practice regarding patient autonomy and the value of life.

Conclusions:

• The application of 'quality of life' is ethically inconsistent, leading to discriminatory practices based on age and disability.
• A re-evaluation of ethical principles is necessary to ensure consistent and just treatment for all patients, regardless of their stage of life or perceived quality of life.
• Ethical frameworks must be revised to uphold patient autonomy and the inherent value of life for all individuals.