Ms. Elizabeth Bouvia, the petitioner, seeks to have a feeding tube removed. Other parties listed include the physicians, nurses, and other medical support staff employed by the City of Las Angeles. These other parties, who are charged with her medical care parties seek to leave her feeding tube in place, as they do not want to cause the patient harm.

Ms. Bouvia has indisputably lost her will to live, and has therefore opted to cease eating, in order to speed up her dying process. Whilst in the hospital, her physicians opted to have a feeding tube inserted without her consent in order to feed her, involuntarily, and sustain her life by 15 to 20 years. The core issue under litigation, here, is whether or not the feeding tube may be removed.

I was selected to reside over the Ethics Committee due to my experience in working with patients who have a Medical Power of Attorney, due to the fact they cannot care for themselves. As such, the foundation of my perspective is built upon the fact that Ms. Bouvia is of sound mind, and able to make decisions for herself. She did not choose to undertake the intervention of a feeding tube, it was force upon her. She does not wish to undergo involuntary feeding; they are being forced upon her. Freedom is a pillar of moral soundness, and the other parties are denying Ms. Bouvia of the freedom, her right, to refuse treatment. This stance bears legal foundation from Cobbs v. Grant (Novack, 1973). Not only is the ethical pillar of freedom being disregarded, the same should to be said for the pillar of respect. While Ms. Bouvia has had much taken from her in life, she has not lost her ability to make decisions for herself; respect for Ms. Bouvia and her freedom must be considered when in the course of arriving at a decision.

The other parties may argue that they are obliged to do well and do no harm to the patient, under principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. While their intentions to do well are noble, they are clouded. They believe that preventing the patient from dying, forcing her to live, against her will, is what is best for the patient. In this instance, forcing someone to continue living against her will, while it is physically good for the body, it is not in the best interest of the patient as a whole. By forcing Ms. Bouvia to live with a feeding tube, which she did not want in the first place, they are doing harm to the patient. As Justice Compton indicated in the study, "Fate has dealt her a terrible hand." Before even reaching the age of 30, she has acquired irreversible, crippling arthritis and palsy; she has sustained a miscarriage and a failed marriage. Ms. Bouvia has lost the will to live; physicians are harming the patient by forcing her to continue in this existence that brings her pain.

(READ THE ABOVE and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW) Understanding that an ethics committee is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professional, take a role of a healthcare professional (physician, nurse, legal counsel, or administrator, etc...)

Which ideas or thoughts did you read that you found interesting or insightful? How did these ideas or thoughts inform your own thinking?

Are there any sections that you think you read that could expound upon? (e.g. "I'd really like to hear more about how you think political corruption is a primary factor in this case.")

What thoughts or questions does your reading response trigger for you?