The principle of futility
I would recommend that Jahi be removed from the life-supporting machine because the help that was being offered at the time did not help. It was apparent that Jahi was going to die despite the efforts that were seen from both the family and the physicians. The coroner had given him a death certificate. The ventilators and life-supporting machines were no longer helpful for the patients. However, the family members insisted that Jahi was not dead and could recover in the soonest of time.
The principle of futility refers to all medical interventions that do not achieve the desired outcome. In this context, the intervention measure of taking Jahi to New Jersey for further medical treatment was futile because it did not change anything. In fact, his health condition worsened, leading to his death. The principle of futility argues that all medical decisions should be practical and workable.
However, it is ethical to promote consultation between the family and the physicians. Health workers should asses the condition of the patient, explore every possible option that can help cure the patient, consult the family before removing the patient from a life support machine. Every action that the physician undertakes must be practical and can achieve a specific objective.
I would not have taken Jahi to New Jersey for further treatment. Instead, I could have given him palliative care and provide him with counseling. It is evident that all the attention that was offered to Jahi in New Jersey was futile. His chances of getting well were minimal. The doctors had already issued him with death certificate because they were confident that he would not recover from the coroner disease.