In the case of Terri Schiavo, questions came up about whether or not it would be ethical to keep somebody alive through a machine if they were in a vegetative state. Being in a vegetative state means that a patient is unaware of their surrounding and one or both of their cerebral hemispheres are damaged to the point where they cannot be fixed. This also means that there is no possible way the patient could be recovered. Also, the person is able to react to basic external stimuli, but not be conscious about it; and in theory, they can’t feel pain. There are two different possible ways to respond to this case of people being in a vegetative state. One way is that the feeding tube should be pulled because this is no way for anyone to live, or even that somebody wouldn’t want to be alive in these conditions. The other way to respond is that they should be kept alive because …show more content…
Behavior like this is not uncommon in patients who are in a vegetative state, and even though they are not consciously aware, they still are able to do these basic things and should be kept alive. Another moral principle that could be applied is to help others in need. This could easily be used to say the feeding tube should not be pulled because the person is breathing on their own, but need the help to be fed. A moral principle that could be applied is to assist others in pursuing their best interest when they cannot. Since the patient is not conscious, and never will be conscious, they are unable to decide what they would like to happen to them. This could be used to say that since the person is in a situation of where they will never be conscious again, and they will not be able to do or comprehend anything, that the feeding tube should be pulled because it is no way to live and it is in their best