LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES IN BIOETHICS: ABORTION, PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE, AND THE DEFINITION OF DEATH

Abstract

This dissertation is comprised of three papers which consider prominent issues in bioethics. The three topics can be briefly stated as: 1) a refutation of the responsibility objection to abortion, 2) a rejection of the orthodox bioethical arguments attempting to justify removal of artificial nutrition and hydration from persistent vegetative state patients, and 3) a demand to revise the current orthodox criteria for determining death. The Responsibility Objection to Abortion is a common and prominent objection to abortion in general. The objection claims that a woman is responsible for the fetus growing inside her body as a result of her willing participation in sexual activity. I argue that the Responsibility Objection to Abortion fails to establish that a woman must provide care to her unborn fetus. I do so by examining the various iterations in which the responsibility objection has been presented and then identifying the particular conception of responsibility that each iteration of the objection must be utilizing in order to ground the particular version of the objection. My contention is that once examined in this manner I am able to demonstrate that each iteration of the objection is unable to establish an obligation to provide care on the part of a pregnant woman to her unborn fetus. Thus, the responsibility objection ceases to be a serious objection to a woman’s reproductive freedom. The second paper in this work considers arguments within the orthodox bioethical framework which seek to justify the removal of life-saving medical treatment (LSMT), especially in the form of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH), from patients in persistent vegetative states (PVS). I first outline the orthodox bioethical framework which seemingly requires the continued feeding of PVS patients. I then focus upon a prominent case of removing ANH from a PVS patient, the case of Theresa Marie (Terri) Schiavo. Seven prominent arguments seeking to justify the removal of Terri’s ANH are considered. I conclude that each of these arguments fails to justify removing Terri Schiavo’s ANH within the established bioethical framework. Proponents of removing ANH from PVS patients such as Terri Schiavo will have to seek alternate approaches to defending their view which rejects the orthodox bioethical framework utilized throughout the discussion. In particular, so long as the right to life is based upon an individual being an innocent human being, removal of LSMT from PVS patients will remain unjustified. The demand for revised criteria for determining death arises due to the inadequacy of the orthodox criteria currently used to determine death, which are reducible to whole brain death. I argue that whole brain death is an inadequate criterion for the death of a human being within the framework of orthodox bioethics. I first consider the conflict between whole brain death and the plausible definitions of death the criterion of whole brain death is intended to reflect. Second, I consider the possibility that whole brain death can be justified as a criterion for death without the need for a definition of death. Third, I consider arguments that whole brain death is analogous to decapitation (long recognized as the death of the decapitated individual). Each of these three arguments for the continued use of whole brain death as the criterion of death are shown to be flawed. Utilizing these arguments presented against whole brain death I suggest revised criteria for determining death that are able to overcome the failures of whole brain death.