Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dont ask, dont tell
Dont ask, dont tell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dont ask, dont tell
Decisions regarding children’s medical treatment has always been a very controversial topic in the United States. The question has always been “Should children have the right to make medical decisions such as denying medical treatment?” Whether children should be able to deny medical treatment or not is entirely circumstantial. One circumstance in which children should have the right to deny medical treatment would be in the case of Jennifer Bush from Coral Springs. This young girl was only eight years old and she had already been hospitalized over 200 times and had undergone about 40 unnecessary and invasive procedures. These 40 procedures included things like the removal of her gallbladder, appendix, and part of her intestines. Due to Jennifer constantly being hospitalized she had missed much of her childhood and school. “The poignant letters Jennifer supposedly wrote the Clintons raised suspicions, too. Nurses told police the girl had missed so much school that she could barely read or write. One nurse said she saw Bush writing on a pad in "large, childlike handwriting." She quickly covered it when the …show more content…
The 14 year old boy needed a blood transfusion but he did not want to receive one because of religious reasons. Dennis was a Jehovah`s witness and he believed that if he received a blood transfusion that it would make him unholy and unworthy. This case is one of few that a judge has approved for a child to deny medical treatment. ¨I don't believe Dennis` decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,¨ the judge said during the hearing.¨ (CBS News, 2007) The judge believed that Dennis was mature enough and that he understood the consequences of his decision. Dennis then refused the blood transfusion and unfortunately passed away after making this
The case of 17-month old Emilio Gonzales was seen and heard nation wide. A conflict between the mother and the physician emerged after the physician no longer expected there be an improvement in his health. This led to the decision of discontinuing providing care for the child and requesting the parents find another facility willing to provide such medical care. The main issue of this case revolved around whether the physician’s decision was morally permissible or legally just. Under Kantian Ethics, Children’s Hospital has moral reasoning to terminate treatment for Emilio and thus is morally justified in withdrawing treatment.
Story: Andrew Bedner is an American man at the center of bioethical controversy regarding the rights of parents to make medical decisions for children they have allegedly abused
In the realm of medical ethics, there are many topics that are debated and discussed, but there is not necessarily one clear, correct answer. One of these topics is paternalism. Many questions are bandied back and forth: is it beneficial, should it be disallowed entirely, are there instances when paternalism is good and beneficial, and the list goes on. For each of these questions there have been authors who have provided their comments. One such author is Alan Goldman. He draws a very firm line on paternalism, simply put: medical paternalism is deleterious to a patient because it intrudes on their primary rights of liberty and autonomy. This paper is going to expound upon Goldman’s viewpoint in detail, going through point by point how he presents his argument. There will then be a critique of Goldman’s viewpoint that will counter his main points. The counterpoints will show Goldman’s views on paternalism are incorrect and should not be considered valid.
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.
On the 1950’s, the above statement drove the medical field insane, many doctors used to forced blood transfusion on Jehovah’s Witness and other doctors refused to provide treatment to those who refuse blood transfusion; even in a life threatening situation. For some time, doctors were put on a bad position, they faced a dilemma when caring for a Jehovah’s Witness patient because if a patient (Jehovah’s Witness) was not treated promptly must likely he/she would die, but if they were threated against his or her wishes with blood transfusions, the doctor was charged with “Assault”. As the time went-on, the blood transfusion topic became more controversial, mainly due to the increase number on cases of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) acquired when used contaminated blood. The Scientifics, along with the medical field were forced to work together with Jehovah’s Witness in order to develo...
Many people believe that medical decisions for children should be left up to the parents or the child’s legal guardian. “ If the state can tag, track down, and forced citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limitation which individual freedoms that state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.” (Barbara Low Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center)
Most of the time parents take decision for a minor, even in the worst scenarios their decisions are always for the best interest of the child. Parental autonomy should always be respected unless the child is at greatest risk for not getting the vaccine.
A. A. The "Best Possible Child" Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web.
Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.
On the other hand, some individuals think that mandatory vaccines deny parents their rights with some believing that “the mandatory vaccination requirements for attendance at public school deny parents their rights to raise their child as they see fit” (Kluck, Shana), and other parents thinking that “God created the human body as a temple and that the body should not be destroyed by injecting a virus into it” (Staver, Mathew D.) However, the fact that parents decide to or want to jeopardize the security of their child for the sake of religion or some other factor is unethical in itself. For example, when a girl named Madeleine grew sick due to her diabetes, “her parents decided to pray for her, instead of taking her to a doctor” (David M Perry), and this scenario could occur with a family against vaccines for religious or other personal reasons. This shows that being against vaccines for no real biological reason is oppressing the rights of the child by putting it in harm’s way, especially considering the fact that
While competent adults may choose faith healing over conventional treatment, society often becomes concerned when parents make such choices for their children. This concern has created organizations who work on passing legislation protecting children from unproven treatment by faith healing.
Children have the right to be protected from harm. Children and young people should have the same protection regardless of age, disability, gender, racial heritage, religious beliefs, or sexual
Hannah Poling, a 19 month old, was diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving five vaccinations in one day. Before receiving these vaccinations Hannah was a healthy child without any characteristic of autism. The Polings, believing the vaccines to have caused her change, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, and won. The courts ruled that the vaccines she had received were responsible for her condition (Healy). This story is just one example of the growing fear and opposition from parents towards vaccines. Likewise, the verdict reached by the courts resulted in an outcry from promoters of vaccines as they fear the negative effects this decision could have on public health. On the one hand, it is argued that the state should be allowed to enforce mandatory vaccinations as this is in our children’s best interest. On the other side of the debate, parents should have a right to decide what is injected into their child’s body, especially when the substance could cause permanent harm or death. Strong arguments have been presented to support both sides, and some of these arguments will be examined in detail.
The question at hand was is healthcare a right or a privilege, reviewing all facts, and data given you will see Health Care in the United States is a privilege. It seems very vile to have resources, and services to deny a person whom has a curable illness or disease, because they don’t have proper health care. However this is the society we live in where liberty and justice for all comes before healthcare for all.
... Their Best Shot: A Law-Medicine Perspective On The Right To Religious Exemptions From Mandatory Vaccination." Case Western Reserve Law Review 63.3 (2013): 869-915. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2014. .