John was severely burned by an accidental propane explosion. The burns disabled John, and the physicians forced treatment on him. Though he survived the treatment, he still argues that he should have been allowed to refuse it so that he could die. Questions to guide your response for Case C: 1. One of the John's physicians says that burn patients are incompetent to make decisions when they first enter the hospital because they are in such a great deal of pain. However, patients such as John can be in a great deal of pain for a very long time. In such cases, what should be done to determine competence, and when should this be done? 2. Do you think the fact that John could not see a future for himself should have been taken into account when determining his competency? Could this have clouded his judgment? (He thought that he would end up on the street corner selling pencils.) 3. Do you think that the fact that John was going to recover, and had the possibility of living a happy life, made not treating John like suicide... or murder? What if he did not have this possibility? 4. After his recovery, John attempted suicide. Should the physicians have let him die? Is it ever correct for a doctor to allow a patient to kill himself? 5. Do you ever think that it is correct for a physician to break a competent patient's autonomy? If so, is this one of those cases? 6. Do you think that in this case, that the ends justified the means?