The principle of beneficence is a directive for the physician to “first avoid harm, then prevent it, then eliminate it. After these come the positive duties to maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms” (Barry, 2012, p. 81). If we contemplate the case from this perspective, we must decide which option will bring the least amount of harm upon the patient. Clearly, the physicians believe that the cessation of food and water is inhumane and as such will harm the patient. On the other hand, those close to Mr. Brophy have confirmed that he distinctly stated that he did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state so it can be noted that to continue to do so is in direct violation of the patient’s wishes causing him inadvertent harm. The principle of justice is defined as the equal and fair distribution of welfare and obligations within a society (Barry, 2012). Barry (1985) explains that money that is expended on care that is essentially futile ends up depleting funds that could be better spent elsewhere. In a sense, keeping this patient alive will deny another patient the funds for a lifesaving treatment he desperately needs, which in turn, harms the patient, violating both