Jim is an active person. He is a lawyer by profession. When he was forty-four years old, a routine physical revealed that he had a tumor on his right lung. After surgery to remove that lung, he returned to a normal life. However, four years later, a cancerous tumor is found in his other lung. He knows he has only months to live. Then comes the last hospitalization. He is on a respirator. It is extremely uncomfortable for him, and he is frustrated by not being able to talk because of the tubes. After some thought, he decides that he does not want to live out his last few weeks like this and asks to have the respirator removed. Because he is no longer able to breathe on his own, he knows this means he will die shortly after it is removed.
Do Jim or the doctors who remove the respirator and then watch Jim die as a result do anything wrong? Why or why not? Would there be any difference between this case and that of a person such as Terri Schiavo, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was not able to express her current wishes, and had left no written request? Would there be a difference in cases such as hers between removing a respirator (which she was not using) and removing a feeding tube? How would you tell whether a respirator or a feeding tube would be considered an ordinary or extraordinary means of life support? What would be the significance of these labels in each case?