Respirator Removal (please explain in at least 5 lines each question)
Jim was an active person. He was a lawyer by profession. When he was forty- four years old, a routine physical revealed that he had a tumor on his right lung. After surgery to remove that lung, he returned to a normal life. However, four years later, a cancerous tumor was found in his other lung. He knew he had only months to live. Then came the last hospitalization. He was on a respirator. It was extremely uncomfortable for him, and he was frustrated by not being able to talk because of the tubes. After some thought, he decided that he did not want to live out his last few weeks like this and asked to have the respirator removed. Because he was no longer able to breathe on his own, he knew this meant he would die shortly after it was removed.
Did Jim or the doctors who removed the respirator and then watched Jim die as a result do anything wrong? Why or why not?
Would there be any difference between this case and that of a person such as Terri Schiavo , who was in a persistent vegetative state, was not able to express her current wishes, and had left no written request?
Would there be a difference in cases such as hers between removing a respirator (which she was not using) and removing a feeding tube? How would you tell whether either one would be considered an ordinary or extraordinary means of life support? Would it matter which one it would be labeled?