A critical technico-ethical dilemma of current medicine.

Abstract

For days and days he had lived only by the aid of enormous quantities of oxygen. Yesterday alone he had consumed forty containers, at six francs apiece — that mounted up, the gentlemen could reckon the cost themselves; and his wife, in whose arms he had died, was left wholly penniless. Joachim expressed disapproval of this expenditure. Why delay by these torturing and costly artificial expedients a death absolutely certain to supervene? One could not blame the man for blindly consuming the precious gas they urged upon him. But those in charge should have behaved with more reason, they should have let him go his way, in God's name, quite aside from the circumstances, more so when taking them into consideration. The living, after all, had their rights — and so on. Hans Castorp disagreed emphatically. His cousin, he said, talked almost like Settembrini, without regard or reverence for suffering. The man had died in the end, that finished it; there was no more to be done to show one's concern, and it had been due to the dying to spend what one could. Thus Hans Castorp" (1, p 291).