I. Background of caseIn November of 2013 a tragic scenario took place. An Indiana Hunter, Timothy Bowers was out enjoying his hobby when he fell over 15 feet to the ground, resulting in paralysis, he subsequently chose to end his life rather than live wheelchair bound. This presents a unique ethical dilemma that touches upon fundamental principles of autonomy, dignity, and the value of life. This analysis seeks to delve into the ethical complexities of the situation, exploring theperspectives of the individuals involved and addressing both sides of the debate. The case prompts reflection on the rights of individuals to make end-of-life decisions, the responsibilities of healthcare professionals, and the broader societal views of euthanasia. By examining these issues through an ethical lens, we aim to navigate the intricacies of this challenging scenario with empathy. The severe spinal injury Bowers sustained was detrimental to the quality of his life goingforward. He was awakened from his medically induced coma hours after the incident to let healthcare providers know whether he wanted to live wheelchair bound or be taken off life support. He chose the latter as he has lived the quality life he wanted. If he chose to go forward with the wheelchair, his life would no longer be of the same quality as it once was and most likely would never be the same. I myself think he made a decision that would be best for himself and family, a decision I would have made as well.II. Arguments in support of your positionAllowing the hunter to end his life can be perceived as an act of beneficence, rooted in the desire to reduce unwanted suffering, this in turn can improve well-being even if it's just for the remainder of his life. By honoring his autonomous decision, we prioritize his subjective experience of suffering. He still deserves to respect his right to seek relief from unbearable physical and emotional distress.The principle of nonmaleficence inherently includes the obligation to avoid causing harm. By permitting euthanasia, we prevent further harm to the hunter by sparing him from a future possibly filled with unnecessary physical and psychological suffering. Paralysis can bring along many different challenges, including chronic pain, loss of bodily function, and increased vulnerability to secondary health complications such as brain injury and neurological disorders (Cleveland Clinic, 2021). Allowing the hunter to end his life in a dignified manner prevents theworsening of these challenges and respects his right to a peaceful and pain-free death.The principle of autonomy proclaims individuals' right to make decisions about their own lives based on their values, beliefs, and preferences. Keeping the hunter's autonomy means respecting his capacity to make a rational and informed choice regarding his end-of-life care. By allowing him to exercise control over his own destiny, we affirm his inherent dignity as a human. Bowers was awoken from a medically induced coma hours after his incident. He was aware ofthe situation going on meaning he was informed about all outcomes of his decision. This meansthat no matter the decision he made it was made soundly. He understood the consequencesand chose accordingly. The decision to pursue euthanasia should be guided by the hunter's own wishes, free from external coercion or undue influence, and supported by thorough discussionswith healthcare professionals and loved ones, in this case the guidelines were followed. Justice demands fairness and equality in the distribution of resources and the treatment of individuals. Permitting euthanasia for the hunter ensures that he is afforded the same rights and opportunities as others to make decisions about his own life and death. Denying him this option based on societal biases or misconceptions about disability would constitute a form of discrimination and injustice. By recognizing his equal worth and inherent dignity, we affirm hisright to a dignified death, consistent with his own values and desires.III. Arguments against your positionOpponents may argue that ending the hunter's life contradicts the principle ofbeneficence, which obligates us to promote the well-being of individuals. They may say that alternative interventions, such as comprehensive rehabilitation and palliative care, offer the potential to improve the hunter's quality of life and alleviate suffering without resorting to euthanasia.Opposers also might say that allowing euthanasia could lead to other problems. They might worry that it could make people with disabilities feel like their lives are less valuable since some would rather die than live a disabled life (NIH para.19). Instead, they say we should focus on improving care and support for people with disabilities.Some may question the hunter's ability to make a fully autonomous decision regarding euthanasia, suggesting that his judgment may be clouded by temporary despair, depression, orlack of access to appropriate support services. They may advocate for a more thorough evaluation of his mental capacity and emotional state, as well as efforts to address any underlying factors contributing to his distress (Role of Psychiatrists in Assisted Dying). It should be noted though that even his wife was in support of his decision. She mentioned that he is a God-fearing man who was ready to go to heaven. So, he wasn't making the decision solely by himself, he had support from family and healthcare providers to provide all information neededfor possible outcomes.Opponents may also argue that permitting euthanasia could perpetuate systemicinequalities, particularly for individuals with disabilities who may face societal pressure to end their lives prematurely. They may assert that the focus should be on addressing social barriers and providing comprehensive support services to enable individuals with disabilities to live fulfilling and meaningful lives, rather than offering euthanasia as a solution to their challenges.IV. Ethical Balancing Test Respecting Bower’s autonomy, while also ensuring his decision is made with informed consent and consideration of all viable options, is the best option. Him deciding to go through with euthanasia, ensures that the life he had lived up until that point was of quality. And since he was fully informed; This approach refutes the argument against euthanasia, which suggests that alternative interventions like rehabilitation could improve the hunter's quality of life without resorting to euthanasia. He got to enjoy his life without limited mobility or any other limits. If hecontinued his life wheelchair bound it would have been of a lower quality than the life he'd lived up until that point. Yes, it would have been a longer life, he probably would have gotten to even see his unborn child. However, it wasn't guaranteed that he would be able to ever hold or even play with his child. Hence this being a lower quality of life. By respecting his autonomy and prioritizing his well-being, we can recognize the significance of both quality and quantity of life in making ethical decisions about end-of-life care. This perspective counters concerns that euthanasia could lead to societal stigma against people with disabilities or undermine efforts to provide adequate end-of-life care.Adhering to ethical guidelines and legal regulations regarding euthanasia is crucial in ensuring that the hunter's decision is based on sound medical indications and respects the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. This involves a thorough assessment of the hunter's medical condition, mental capacity, and voluntariness of his decision, as well as adherence to established protocols for the provision of euthanasia. By following established procedures and guidelines, we can safeguard the integrity of the decision-making process andensure that the hunter's autonomy is respected while also upholding ethical standards of care.V. ConclusionIn conclusion, navigating the ethical complexities of the Indiana deer hunter scenario requires careful consideration of competing principles and values. By balancing the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, we can arrive at a recommendation that upholds the hunter's right to self-determination while also considering broader societal implications. Ultimately, respecting the hunter's autonomy in his decision regarding euthanasia,provided it is made with informed consent and without coercion, aligns with principles of compassion and dignity. This strategy recognizes the specific challenges faced by the hunter and validates his ability to shape his own destiny. However, it is essential to recognize the importance of comprehensive support services and efforts to enhance the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, ensuring that euthanasia remains a last resort in cases of severe and irreversible suffering. By prioritizing empathy, integrity, and ethical reasoning, we cannavigate this complex ethical dilemma with sensitivity and respect for all involved parties.Word count: 1,342Works cited:1)Cleveland clinic. (2021, June 10). Paralysis. Retrieved from Cleveland Clinicwebsite: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15345-paralysis2)Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying:what is the current position and what are the key arguments informing thedebate?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407–413.https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768188034523)Roy, K. (2016). Role of Psychiatrists in Assisted Dying: A Changing Trend.American Journal of Psychiatry Residents’ Journal, 11(9), 5–7.https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2016.110902