To come to an agreement on whether each of these cases are justifiable, we must examine what moral and ethical obligations are needed to decide. Ethical reasoning looks at whether something is good or bad based on moral principles and values. Moral behavior is whether something is acceptable to society as being right or wrong. Thus, in these two cases presented, many could view each of these differently based on their own personal beliefs and opinions. In the case of Roosevelt Dawson, he is a 21-year-old man that got his legs taken away from him by the rapid progression of a disease that effects the spinal cord. The moral concern that arises is that his quality of life dramatically changed. He would have to relearn how to function with such …show more content…
In the case of Roosevelt Dawson, he is a young individual who is faced with an overwhelming disease that leaves him without the function of his arms and legs. Similarly, the baby was born without arms and legs and will face the same obstacles if given the chance. Decisions for these cases need to be based on what gives the patient the most autonomy, self-dignity, respect, and the right to life. The diseases in these cases aren’t deemed fatal if they are treated appropriately. Thus, both individuals would be able to live out life until there is no ability to treat their conditions. In the past, the board has agreed in favor of the competent person to refrain from receiving nourishment and/or any sort of breathing assistance. These two individuals would succumb to their diseases if they weren’t supplied either of these to treatments. However, the baby is incompetent to make any health decisions since she is only ten days old. The medical staff will rely on her mother, who is the surrogate decision maker, to make any medical decisions. In addition, Dawson, who was healthy, active, and smart prior to his disease, is being speculated as incompetent due to the psychological effects of being diagnosed with his disease. Thus, both are relying on someone else to make life altering decisions for them even though it may not be what each want. Competence is the decision-making ability of said person but that person can be competent to decide one situation but unable to in another due to the circumstances. This is what the health care providers are arguing that Dawson falls under due to the fact he is overwhelmed by the outcome of his disease. However, they haven’t proved that Mr. Dawson is incompetent and unable to make decisions on his own. Lastly, both patients have the right to life. The baby girl has the right to receive the surgery and have the chance to live with her disabilities. Also, Dawson can be said to have the