Objectives
- To evaluate the legal implications of discontinuing life support for brain-dead patients.
- To analyze the emotional impact on medical professionals when withdrawing life support.
- To examine the moral implications of withdrawing life support from brain-dead patients.
- To explore the impact of brain death on families of brain-dead patients.
Introduction
The discontinuation of life support for brain-dead patients is a highly contentious issue that has been debated for decades by medical professionals, religious leaders, lawmakers, and patient’s families. The arguments for and against the withdrawal of life support raise essential questions about autonomy, the value of life, the sanctity of death and the rights of families. The moral implications of withdrawing life support are further complicated by debates surrounding euthanasia, the right to die and the use of life-sustaining therapies such as ventilators, dialysis and organ transplantation (Berkowitz et al., 2020). I, therefore, support a thorough discussion between medical professionals and families of brain-dead patients to reach a consensus of what is ethically permissible and what is not, as well as a clear legal framework that allows medical professionals to make informed, ethical decisions promptly. I provide evidence and reasons to argue against the withdrawal of life support from brain-dead patients.
Impact on Medical Profession
The disastrous effects of discontinuing ventilation in these cases can have moral and professional consequences for the medical profession. Research has highlighted the negative emotional impact on a healthcare team after the clinical decision to discontinue life support. A survey of intensive care clinicians revealed that one-third reported symptoms of depression or anxiety after withdrawing life support from a patient (Sulmasy et al., 2019). Furthermore, there are potential legal consequences if the decision to withdraw life support is perceived as unethical or not in line with accepted medical practices. This can result in a loss of professional credibility and negative media attention, which can further damage the trust people have in the medical profession (Lee et al., 2020). I, as a result of this, agree that healthcare providers must be diligent when making the difficult decision to withdraw life support from brain-dead patients. The potential moral implications should never be ignored; they must consider the patient’s wishes, medical best practices, and empathy for their families.
Preserving the Right to Life of a Brain-Dead Patient
The act of withdrawing life support from a brain-dead patient is immoral due to a natural inclination to preserve life in any form. This argument is supported by the legal rights associated with it, as individuals have the right to refuse certain types of medical treatment even if it means giving up their life (Nezamoleslami et al., 2021). Brain-dead patients may still be living and technically alive, as evidenced by their heartbeat and blood circulation. These patients retain some degree of consciousness and thus have the right to life, as it would be wrong to terminate life support services. Therefore the patient’s right to life should remain at the forefront of any decision.
The Impact of Brain Death on Families
In a study by Schwartz (2020), results indicated that families of brain-dead patients are affected in three main ways – grief, difficulty in decision-making, and struggling with different feelings of guilt. The researchers found grief to include “sadness, helplessness, and bitterness”. At the same time, the difficulty in decision-making resulted from conflicting opinions among family members and medical personnel and an overall sense of confusion. Additionally, many had difficulty knowing which decision to make, finding themselves in a difficult situation due to the ambiguity of the situation. Lastly, feelings of guilt were also expressed by family members, with those who chose to terminate life support feeling guilty for making such a difficult decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, health professionals should be mindful of legal and ethical obligations when making life-support decisions, such as respecting informed consent, providing dignified end-of-life care, and ensuring that resources are distributed equitably. This essay has presented the arguments against discontinuing ventilation in brain-dead patients, highlighting the complexities of such a decision on the patient’s family and the actual life.
References
Berkowitz, I., & Garrett, J. R. (2020). Legal and ethical considerations for requiring consent for apnea testing in brain death determination. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(6), 4-16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2020.1754501
Lee, S., & Lewis, A. (2022). Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria in the United States: What Every Clinical Ethics Consultant Should Know. In Thorny Issues in Clinical Ethics Consultation (pp. 155–163). Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-91916-0_18
Nezamoleslami, D., & Kiamanesh, R. (2021). Brain Death, Challenges Between Reality and the New Concept of Death May Not Be Synonymous With the True Meaning and Need Redefining. Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics, 8(3), 191-197. https://jhsme.muq.ac.ir/article-1-263-en.html
Schwartz, A. (2020). Issues Determining Brain Death: The Case for Religious and Moral Exceptions. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2084&context=student_scholarship
Sulmasy, D. P. (2019). Whole-brain death and integration: realigning the ontological concept with clinical diagnostic tests. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 40(5), 455-481. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-019-09504-w
write