Replies

Then why allow ventilators to be used at all? Why do we allow patients without brain damage to use a ventilator? That is, after all, where the distinction is being made. The excuse for removing the ventilator is the brain damage.

That's a very good question, and it clearly illustrates how medical ethics addresses this type of situation. The prognosis for the patient is a major element of this. The proscribed -- and even mandated -- level of care for two different patients could be very different if their long-term prognoses are different. A patient will often be put on a ventilator simply because of an uncertain prognosis -- i.e., the medical care provider must always "err" in the favor of preserving the patient's life when there is a reasonable expectation or even some uncertainty that the patient might be restored to good health. A patient whose prognosis is very poor, on the other hand, would not necessarily be given the same level of care.

Here's a good illustration of this . . .

A modern medical facility these days could probably keep a patient "alive" indefinitely, based on the definitions of "alive" commonly used by the medical community. And yet the same hospital that would provide mechanical substites for most bodily functions on a temporary basis for a major surgical procedure would not be expected to do the same thing for a 100 year-old patient (indefinitely) who is brought into the hospital with massive organ failure, multiple infections, etc.