Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Christian views on suffering and death
Ethical dilemma healthcare
Ethical or moral dilemmas related to healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Christian views on suffering and death
According to the BBC, Charlotte Wyatt was an infant born three months premature in October 2003. This premature birth has caused complications including severe brain damage. The medical professionals caring for Charlotte acknowledged this, predicting that she would live no more than a few months, regardless of medical care. Charlotte remained living under hospital care as she received medical treatment, including things like constant oxygen supply, and at this point, she did not respond to stimulation but appeared to be suffering significant pain. She continued to outlive doctor’s predictions as these conditions continued for months.
Charlotte’s existence continued, but medical prognosis was bleak and doctors decided it was most humane not to prolong her pain. According to the Journal of Medical Ethics, they felt that there was no way to improve her quality of life, which would always be intensely painful. The decision was made to continue current treatment, but not to resuscitate if she stopped breathing. Her parents, however, dissented. They drew upon their strong Christian beliefs, hoping for a miracle and saying that Charlotte deserved every chance to live. They relied on evidence of her development, saying that she was now able to see and respond to stimuli. Her doctors, however, felt that her quality of life would not improve; she would always be in pain and could not live beyond infancy.
This case was taken into the British court system where, after a long trial, a judge upheld the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate. The reasoning was that the judge felt he could not order the doctors to perform actions that would cause increased suffering for the child. After considering the doctrines of the sanctity of life and the...
... middle of paper ...
...s parents. Since they are reliant upon a miracle for Charlotte’s recovery passive euthanasia allows for this to happen, as explained above. Additionally, as Christians, active euthanasia is seen to presume that we can decide the right time for someone to die, rather than relying on God’s timing. Because of this, passive euthanasia is not only different, but morally preferable to the active form.
In conclusion, we support the Court’s conclusion to uphold the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate Charlotte Wyatt on the grounds that she was no longer truly living and her prolonged existence and suffering did not outweigh the sum of the costs to both herself and everyone involved. Although ownership, or responsibility for a minor usually falls upon the parents or guardians, under these conditions they were unable to make an unbiased decision due to emotional investment.
How it relates to healthcare: The child’s injuries proved severe, and Bedner faced a long prison sentence if convicted,but he didn’t face murder charges.As his critically ill daughter,C.B. remained on life support the hospital sought to exclude Bender from decisions regarding from life support. The girl eventually did die, but the case generated considerable public debate and stimulated a controversy among bioethics scholars .
In my opinion, if a person is terminally ill and there is no chance of bringing them back then they should have the right to make the choice whether they want to be kept alive or let go. What is the point of sitting in a hospital for the rest of a person’s life if they are not going to be able to do any thing? This claim is supported throughout the entire text through her believes in religion. And every night I prayed that his agonized eyes would never again plead with me to let him die (96). Barbara talked about how she wondered about a spiritual judge, and by this, it shows that religion is an important part in her life. Several times in the text, he begs to be let go so his suffering could be come to an end. Some would ask why we would not have the right to die. How enjoyable could life be when a person must be resuscitated fifty-two times in just one month?
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
In the book The Right to Die by Elaine Landau a story is shared of a young boy. The kids name is Juan and he was seventeen years of age, he had a terrible tumor that had to be operated on. The first surgery he had went well, but dismally the tumor came back again. Subsequently after the first surgery Juan was weak and almost died. The doctor and parents decided that he needed another surgery, however, Juan disagreed. He wanted to live the last few months of his life without pain, he wanted to go enjoy time at school and with friends. Instead his parents forced him into surgery and sadly died three weeks after surgery. The fact of the matter is that minors have a voice too, and it needs to be understood. Exactly like the Right to Die, some want the option to use it and others do not, but as long as it is available terminally ill patients feel more welcoming to the thought of death (Landau
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
Mohr, M., & Kettler, D. (1997). Ethical aspects of resuscitation. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 253.
Decision-making not always the easiest thing to do when it comes to the balance of someone’s life in your hands, you just never know what choice is the right one. The doctors and nurses handled themselves very well while being under the pressure of hopeful parents. One thing that affected me was that so many medical professionals were against giving the child a chance to fight in the first place. One physician from Switzerland, Jeremy Irons said that they don’t normally try to resuscitate a child unless it is over 25 weeks gestation. Meaning that in their country doctors...
...dical emergency where there is not time to wait for court overruling, the staff is not legally obligated to obtain parental permission; in this case two consultants should make an entry in the patient’s chart that procedure or transfusion was necessary to save the patient’s life. As a consequence and overruling from the court system, the state withdraws parental decision in order to protect and promote health of the child (Effa-Heap, 2009).
Because the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the removal of Nancy Cruzan’s artificial hydration and nutrition on the grounds that “clear and convincing” evidence of Nancy’s wishes was not provided, the Cruzan family appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court arguing that Nancy was being deprived of her right to refuse medical treatment. The Supreme Court ruling affirmed that competent patients have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but also noted that incompetent patients are not capable of exercising this right. Consequently, states may establish their own safe-guards to govern cases in which a substituted decision maker wishes to refuse treatment for an incompetent patient. This ruling therefore upheld the decision of Missouri’s Supreme Court.
I was unable to experience an ethical dilemma at my clinical site; however, I have come across a few dilemmas in recent news. The ethical dilemma I have chosen to discuss took place in California. A two-year-old boy had a severe asthma attack that resulted in him becoming brain dead after having a heart attack. Although three doctors from two different hospitals declared the boy brain dead, the family asked the court to have their son remain on a ventilator, and then took off to Guatemala to receive treatment they felt their son was not receiving in California. There, a neurologist declared that the boy was not brain dead, so the family returned to California to a new hospital. After days there the court order they asked for was denied. The boy was taken off the ventilator and passed away (Miller, 2016).
With the guidance of their physician, Baby Does’ parents chose to withhold medical care and surgery due to the conclusion still leaving the child with severe retardation. “Officials at the hospital had the Indiana Juvenile Courts appoint a guardian to determine whether or not to perform the surgery. The court finally ruled in favor of the parents and upheld their right to informed medical decision” (Resnik, 2011). Because of the decision made to withhold surgery and medical care, Baby Doe died five days later of dehydration and pneumonia.
Neonatal resuscitation is intervention after a baby is born to strengthen it’s breathe or to boost its heartbeat. Approximately 10% of neonates require some assistance to begin breathing at birth, but only 1% require serious resuscitative measures. Informed consent regarding neonatal resuscitation is a constant ethical debate. This discourse ordinarily occurs between doctors and parents; parents often feel that the decision has been made for them, believing that they were not fully informed of any consequences that may occur before making their final action plan, or thinking that their opinion was not taken seriously; however, doctors see the procedure in a different light, that the parents can’t choose the best option for the child regardless of counseling, or performing as the parents wished but believing that the result could have differed if the parents had known all the effects that it will have further down the line, or convinced that they would have made a better
Several ethical principles that are incorporated in the nursing care of patients on a daily basis are nonmalificence, autonomy, beneficence, justice, fidelity and paternalism. Nurses should strive to comply to as many of the principles as possible. In this case there are principles which support and conflict with the wishes of the patient. The first principle that supports the wish of the patient is autonomy. Autonomy means that competent patients have the right to make decisions for themselves and the delivery of the healthcare that they receive. Another factor that would support the patient’s wish to not be resuscitated is nonmalificence. Non maleficence means that nurses should not cause harm or injury to their patients. In this case the likelihood of injury after resuscitation was greater than if the patient were allowed to expire. A principle that could have negatively affected the outcome of the provision of ethical care was paternalism. Paternalism is when a healthcare provider feels that they know what is best for a patient, regardless of the patient’s desire for their own care. I demonstrated the principle of paternalism because I thought that I knew what was best for the patient without first consulting with the patient or family. This situation might have had some very negative consequences had the patient not have been competent. Practicing a paternalistic mindset might have caused a practitioner in the same instance to force their ideas about not resuscitating the loved one onto the family. This could have caused a sense of remorse and loss of control of care amongst the
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death: A Report on the Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.