Helping or violating free will?

[meadow-foreigner]

I perform a specific procedure at work where I insert a long term version of an IV into patients that need long term access or central access for critical medications. Many times, these patients are intubated which hasn't bothered me until I performed a couple on patients that weren't. One was a chronically ill patient who suffered a traumatic brain injury years ago. He's awake and somewhat aware but nonverbal and just looks around. Sometimes he seems as if he's fighting back but you can't really tell. Yet his family always gives consent to whatever needs to be done to keep him alive.

As I was doing the procedure, I started to feel bad about it while wondering if he really wanted to live like that. It's not his choice obviously since he has no control over anything that happens. This caused me a bit of introspection into whether I'm violating these patients free will. I try to think about the whole all is well thing but on an individual scale, all I can think about is whether they want to live or die. Maybe this was their plan all along? That doesn't bring much solace though. Am I really helping or am I a part of their continued suffering? It's a fickle thing 

Disclaimer: I am not advocating for any particular action. You do as you think it's best.

I have seen occasions in which an individual's corporeal volition has been negated.
I have seen certain scenarios in which an individual's mental volition has been curbed and dulled in order to appease and to satisfy other individuals.

This surely brings lots of ethical and moral discussions to the table; discussions which the vast majority of today's society doesn't seem to be precisely mature to understand and to properly discuss.

Is one's volition truly perceivable; expressable? Is one's understanding of one's volition confused?
What are the implications of another one ultimately trampling one's volition for whatever reason?

The potential implications of acting upon another individual's volition are many.
One might think one acts "in due order" when one negates another one's volition.
One might think one acts "in due order" when one accepts another one's volition.

While there certainly are societal conventions on what is right and what is wrong – conventions that vary throughout the ages and cultures – I do suggest that there are more optimal and less optimal ways of living. Optimality is linked to harmonics just as sub-optimality is linked to the distance in relation to a certain harmonic.