Medical treatment and the law

Two recent cases highlight the question of the grounds for enforcing or refusing medical treatment.

Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B11
Headline: Hunt for mum, sick boy who is avoiding chemo

Quote1
SLEEPY EYE (Minnesota): A nationwide police hunt is under way in the United States for a mother [Colleen Hauser] who fled with her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son [Daniel] rather than consent to chemotherapy they say violates their religious beliefs. ...

Comment1
The premiss here is that religious beliefs take precedence over medical advice.

Quote2
The Hausers had been ordered to appear before a judge on Tuesday for a hearing to consider chemotherapy. A warrant was issued for Colleen Hauser's arrest when she and her son failed to show up. ... AP, AFP.

Comment2
Note that the court hearing is to consider chemotherapy. The court has not yet made its decision. Hence, the warrant is for the Hausers to attend the hearing, and not for them to submit to treatment.

BUT in another case, the court did make a decision.

Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B8
Headline: Korean court upholds 'right to die'

Quote3
SEOUL: The Supreme Court ... supported a request by the family of [brain-dead and comatose] 76-year-old Kim Ok Kyung that she be allowed to die with dignity. ... In the majority decision released yesterday, Chief Justice Lee Yong Hoon said ... treatment could be stopped by making a presumption about the wishes of the patient. Maintaining a patient in a brain-dead state damaged human dignity when there was no chance of recovery. ...

Comment3
It is important here to discern the logical links.

If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)

But what about the patient's wishes?

Quote4
In the current case, he noted, the woman had told her family she did not want to be kept alive artificially if her hospital treatment ran into problems. "We must respect the patient's will because forced life-sustaining treatment may damage human dignity." ... AFP, Reuters, AP.

Comment4
The patient had expressed her wish to be not on life support. The remaining logical links are:

If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)

We can now assemble the whole argument:

Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient))
Conclusion1: Hence, (damage human dignity) [to Premiss4]

Premiss3: If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)
Premiss4: (damage human dignity) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: (patient declines life support)
Conclusion2: Hence, (stop life support)

We have a problem. We have (maintain patient) in Premiss2, and (stop life support) in Conclusion2. This is a contradiction. The argument is faulty. We must reformulate the links.

Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support)), then (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity))
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support))
Conclusion1: Hence, (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [to Premiss3]

Premiss3: If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss4: Not-(damage human dignity)
Conclusion2: Hence, not-(maintain patient) [=(stop life support)]

The argument is now clear.

Note that in both cases, we do not have the doctors' arguments available for analysis.

END