Donald “Dax” Cowart: The Right to Death?
by Donald “Dax” Cowart is an attorney noted for the ethical issues raised by efforts to sustain his life against his wishes, following an accident. This is the quick summary of his accident and the issues that raises much concern and question in the medical and bioethical circles.
Dax is known legally as Donald Cowart, a young man in his 20s. He was extremely outgoing, athletic, popular and a ladies man. Born as the only child to very religious parents.
Why is he so Famous?
Don Cowart’s story is a corner stone of the philosophical, bioethical and medical ethics arguments among scholars and legal proceedings. The essential question Dax’s condition deals with is the right of a patient to refuse treatment and ask for death. This case is also part of the argument for Active Euthanasia.
What happened?
Dax’s story really began in the summer of 1973. He returned from serving in Vietnam as an Air Force pilot so everything was going well in his well for him. Unfortunately an accident happened where propane tanks in his car exploded, killing his father while getting over 68% of his body was burned – with 3rd degree burns on his face. Don asked for a gun to kill himself to put an end to his suffering but he was refused and taken to a hospital. He stayed in the hospital for a painful 14 months and during his time there, he asked for death several times. So his mother was given the power of attorney while he was declared mentally incompetent. During his stay in the hospital, he experienced painful tankings in alcohol and disinfectants, several operations, blindness and sleep problems. He tried to refuse treatment but he doctors and his mother did not listen to him, leading to further depression and here Donald Cowart attempted his first suicide which was a failure.
Out-Patient Care
After getting out of the hospital, Don was bedridden for around 2 years at home – completely depended on his mother. During this time, he attempted another suicide when he tried to walk in front of a truck on the highway but the trucker stopped and returned him back to his mother. After a slight recovery, he attended law school but this time was marred by two more suicide attempts, failed relationships, failed business and a divorce. However, he managed to get out with a law degree and started his own practice advocating the “right to die” movement.
Analysis of Doctor Robert White
Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert B. White at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, was called in to analyze the “Dax” case. According to White, the demand to die was a way to assert his will and independence. However, if you think about it, Doctor White’s analysis does not make sense because Donald Cowart attempted suicide numerous times and actively tried to die so this is not a case of “asserting idependence”… the man wanted to die. Dr. White also said Dax could have refused treatment. However, this is also false because Dax asked to stop his treatments and even asked for a gun to kill himself. Dax only agreed to plastic surgery so he can attempt to kill himself, which was also a failure. Then during this in-patient stay, he agreed to stay alive during the settlement with the gas company so his mother can get more money. So Doctor Robert White’s conclusions about Donald “Dax” Cowart is wrong.
Englehardt and Kant
The philosopher Englehardt from Texas argues when is Paternalism justified? We have to weigh the benefits and the amount of suffering it will take to fix the issue. We have to weigh price versus goal. So who should be the judge? In Dax’s case, which is better – years of pain and suffering versus a life with crippling disability and disfigurement? So is society the judge to decide whether such a man can live or die or should the competent patient be opted to decide his own future? Philosopher Kant argues that using yourself – a rational being – as a mere means to some end is wrong. Arguing essentially that aiming for death for your own escape from suffering is wrong.
The Question
So you be the judge, should people like Dax be allowed to die? And if so, at what time should they be allowed to die and what should the benchmark for such issues be? If not, then why should people be allowed to go through painful and tortuous treatments and live a life of pain and disability, disfigurement and segregation? If you argue yes, to the questions above, then how shall we approach the issue of Active and Passive Euthanasia?
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentGlynis
On June 1, 2008 at 1:57 am
A very difficult area, the medical team have the job of saving life, the mother of protecting her child, the patient himself has the right to refuse treatment, it is sad that he didn’t manage to take his own life if he was in that much pain physically and mentally. As a nurse and a mother I am afraid I have to sit on the fence on this one. Well written, thanks
Jessie
On June 1, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Dax wanted to die and the medical team utterly dismissed his request. He had his autonomy violated over and over. It was not as if he did not know the risks involved with his desire to end his misery. He was mentally intact and put through painful treatments he did not want. I do not think it was up to the doctor to decide what was best for him given the circumstances. Dex’s autonomy and decision making should have been respected.
Eva
On October 21, 2008 at 11:25 pm
This article is a good summary but slightly inaccuarate and leaves out a lot of important information in Dax’s case. I recommend that people seek another source for additional infomation.
jadd
On October 27, 2008 at 8:57 pm
white power
Graduate Nursing Student
On March 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm
This is such a moving story. On what hand, “Dax” has the right to autonomy and his voice should be heard On the other hand, his voice today (patient advocacy) is powerful. When one considers moral philosophy (good or bad, right or wrong), it is wrong for the Physician to assert his paternalism and ignore the wishes of a competent individual. The right for a competent individual to self-govern is a basic human right. Ethical cases have to be approached in an individual manner and what works in one case may not work in the other.
Jim Moriarty
On July 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I concede that this is an awful and complicated issue. However, unlike the other people who have posted here, I actually know and love this man, and had he succeeded in ending his life, mine
would be much the poorer.
joseph r. haag
On August 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm
this is a tremendously difficult case. it seems easy to accept that dax was not competent at the beginning to make a meaningful decision. in my mind dax was not requesting to die. he wanted his agonizing pain to stop. it is fine for physician’s to state patients such as dax are not capable of an informed decision, however they need to go a step farther and prescribe anesthetics and painkillers to keep him comfortable. in the final analysis one cannot imagine having to make the choices that faced dax cowart, the terrible pain plus the horrific disfigurement, the pity and ridicule from others. which choice is preferable? i have no way of knowing, but i do know that he is owed many more options.
Charles
On November 3, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Your synopsis is all wrong. He was not burned by propane in his car. He was burned by propane in the area due to a byproduct of a nearby oil plant. His father’s car triggered the explosion. He was never declared mentally incompetent. In fact, he was declared competent.
He was never put into a pool of alcohol. Why would they do that to a burn patient? to treat burns, you keep the area moisturized, not dry as alcohol would naturally dry out the skin.
His blindness was a result of his eyes being burnt, not from his stay in the hospital. State troopers found him on the side of the road… a trucker did not return him home.
Before publishing a story, make sure the facts are right.
Cindi
On November 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm
According to the 20/20 interviews, he was dipped in a vat of bleach water in order to disinfect the area and allow the skin to be peeled off in a sanitary manner.