In considering Case 6.1b, the physicians should disconnect John’s respirator and allow him to die. The first pertinent question regarding this case would be John’s perceived rationality. If John is not rational, then his preferences do not weigh any role in deciding his fate as incompetent individuals do not have autonomy. The doctors have described John as, “fully alert, conscious, and in control of his mental faculties” (209). This description demonstrates that John is in fact, a rational patient. As such, the physicians should not question John’s competence when he conveys his wishes die. John has demonstrated a complete understanding of his situation as well as the consequences he would experience if the doctors were to remove him from the respirator. But John maintains that his status will only continue to worsen over time and with increased complications…show more content… Non-maleficence could be questioned because unplugging the respirator means committing an act that will ultimately cause John harm and lead to his death since he is not able to sustain life on his own. However, the longer John lives, the more pain he will experience as a result of his disease. Even if the doctors were to keep John alive, there is little they could do long-term to ensure his health or wellbeing. So by allowing John to continuously experience the pain and suffering that comes along with Neurofibromatosis, they are also causing him harm. Either way, it appears that the doctors will not be able to satisfy non-maleficence. On the other hand, beneficence would have a role in this case in that by removing him from the respirator, doctors are giving John what he asked for and providing him with a sense of peace, even if that means is death would occur. Although they would not be helping him physically, the doctors would be doing whatever “good” they could for him in that
