Austin, Texas – Mental health providers face an ethical dilemma when their patients express a desire to forego treatment and enter palliative care. The issue was explored in an article published in The New York Times Magazine, which profiled Naomi, a woman afflicted by anorexia nervosa and who has had no success with traditional interventions. While Naomi is deemed competent to make decisions about her care, the question arises of whether different rules should apply to mentally ill individuals compared to those with physical illnesses.
The article highlights the complexity of this moral dilemma without taking a definitive stance. It invites readers to grapple with the issue themselves, contemplating the tensions between patient autonomy and the potential lack of competence caused by the nature of anorexia nervosa. Although Naomi may articulate her wishes clearly, the argument is made that her starved brain may influence her decision-making abilities.
This inquiry unearths underlying considerations often left unexamined. Readers’ perspectives on death, mental illness, personal autonomy, and attitudes toward the healthcare system shape their stance on Naomi’s right to discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The article demonstrates how moral values play a central role in this discussion, revealing the importance of examining one’s moral core.
In a similar vein, the author shares a personal experience from their legal career. Representing individuals on death row, the author frequently encountered inmates who expressed a desire to abandon all appeals and proceed with execution. The author, like many lawyers in similar positions, resisted their clients’ choices, believing that their clients’ convictions were obtained unlawfully and that the conditions on death row were a contributing factor to their clients’ suicidal tendencies.
The author justified their actions by considering the belief that executions should always be contested to prevent unrestrained power by the state. They argue that the responsibility of challenging the lawfulness of capital punishment falls upon counsel for the condemned since the state cannot be trusted to hold itself accountable. However, the author remains uncertain about whether their decision was ultimately the right one.
Complexity arises when considering the autonomy of the client. The author questions whether their actions prolonged their client’s suffering and whether the client’s life would have been better if they had been allowed to proceed with their initial decision to volunteer for execution. Moreover, when the client eventually changed their mind, the author reflects on the potential impact of their prolonged legal battle. Ultimately, the author raises the question of whether allowing the assault on individual dignity through capital punishment may, in certain cases, protect the dignity of the individual.
This thought-provoking article provides insight into the ethical challenges faced by mental health providers and lawyers in navigating the competing interests of patient autonomy and ensuring the best outcome for individuals with severe illnesses or facing death row. Naomi’s story and the author’s personal experience shed light on the moral considerations underlying these dilemmas.