Personal identity has moral implications for how humans in persistent vegetative states should be treated. A human body may no longer be a person if the soul has left, so the person is gone. If the human is still a person, the entity has a different moral status than a body that once served as a person. If no person is present or no person can sense anything, it seems morally acceptable to avoid talking to the body or providing stimulation. The question of whether to keep the body alive depends on whether a person is still present. If a person is present and aware, the person is isolated and effectively sentenced to solitary confinement, making the situation morally different. If a person is present, keeping the body alive has moral significance; if not, keeping an empty shell alive lacks a compelling reason.
"But, if despite appearances, there is still a person present who is aware of what is going on around them, then the matter is morally different. In this case, the person has been isolated-which is very bad for a person. They have, in effect, been sentenced to solitary confinement."
Read at A Philosopher's Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]