Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between religious views and healthcare essay
Ethical dilemmas in the emergency room
The relationship between religious views and healthcare essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Four Topics Method of Analysis is a tool developed by clinical ethicists used to examine clinical encounters. This method provides a consistent, organized framework for gathering information regarding the encounter in order to perform analysis. The method is organized into four parts: Medical Indications, Patient Preferences, Quality of Life, and Contextual Features.
We can organize information regarding this case study by using the Four Topics Method beginning with the Medical Indications. Maria, a 20-year-old female, has been involved in a motor vehicle accident. She has a history of Sickle Cell disease and is currently twenty-five weeks pregnant with her first child. Initially Maria presents with somewhat stable vital signs. She displays tachypnea, and complains of severe abdominal cramping as well as weakness, light-headedness and left shoulder pain. She is neurologically intact with lung sounds that are within defined parameters. Maria’s condition changes and she begins to display signs and symptoms of internal bleeding. This is a life threatening condition. The problem is critical and can be reversed with a transfusion and surgery. The goal of transfusion would be to replace blood loss and restore vascular volume and the goal of surgery would be to repair the bleed. If the bleed is corrected in a timely manner and without complication, the probabilities of success are somewhat high. There is no plan in place to account for therapeutic failure. Medical care in this instance could not only save the life of this patient but also that of her unborn child. Further harm to Maria and her baby could be avoided if she would agree to the treatment.
The next area to consider is Patient Preferences. In th...
... middle of paper ...
...s driven by non-maleficence, or the intent to “do no harm”. They know that withholding treatment for religious beliefs will potentially be fatal to both. While Maria is acting out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff is acting out of loyalty to the patient’s well being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party were acting on behalf of that child. In conclusion, providers in this case must pursue every option in delivering life saving treatment for this child. This may involve legal action. If it were just Maria providers may attempt to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse suggested treatment. Since her decision affects the life of the baby providers are called upon to save that child .
Works Cited
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 10 and 18 U.S.C. § 1841 et seq. (Cornell Law 2004).
There are many ethical paradigms through which humans find guidance and justification for their own actions. In the case of contractarianism, citizens of a state are entitled to human rights, considered to be unalienable, and legal rights, which are both protected by the state. As Spinello says, “The problem with most rights-based theories is that they do not provide adequate criteria for resolving practical disputes when rights are in conflict” (14). One case that supports Spinello is the case of Marlise Munoz, a brain-dead pregnant thirty-three year old, who was wrongly kept on life support for nearly two months at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. Misinterpretation of the Texas Advance Directives Act by John Peter Smith Hospital led to the violation of the contractarian paradigm. Although the hospital was following the directive in order to maintain legal immunity for its hospital staff, the rights of the family were violated along with the medical fundamental principle to “first, do no harm.”
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...
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
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.
a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105,
Pregnant and Imprisoned in the United States. (2000). Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, 27(4), 266-
Warren, Mary Anne , and Mappes and D. DeGrazia. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Oregon Right of Life. “Unborn Babies Do Feel Pain”. Oregon Right Of Life. YouTube. YouTube, 30 April 2011. Web. 2014, 14 May
Thomson appeals to the strongest case for abortion, rape, to define the rights of the fetus and the pregnant person. Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to choose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result of their pregnancy. In this case, the right of the pregnant person to decide what happens to their body outweighs both the fetus and the pregnant person’s right to life.
Doctors have to go through many years of studying and many more hours of practicing on people. These qualities make any doctor seem god-like to the eyes of everyday people. Doctors are trusted blindly and people are led to believe that doctors are always honest. In the story, The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams, the parents of Matilda question the tactics the doctor is using to properly diagnose the girl but trust that the doctor knows what he is doing and lets him use force anyway. These cases are seen all over the world as well. There have been many reported cases of doctors using force to allow patients to get treated. Some patients however, do not wish to be treated because of things like religion or preference or other reasons but doctors still treat them in order to save them from themselves. The power struggle creates anger and resentment from both parties and blurs the line between personal rights and saving lives. In an article written by Jessica Grose, doctors force a woman to have a C-Section because they believe it was in the baby’s best interest. However, the woman did not want to have the surgery performed. This led to the doctors threatening to sue the woman for possible child endangerment. The woman, in fear of possibly killing her child, sided with the health care providers even though personally she did not want to have the surgery performed. This
More than one in three women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012). Thirty to sixty percent of perpetrators tend to also abuse children in the household (Edelson, 1999). Witnessing violence between parents or caretakers is considered the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next (Break the Cycle, 2006). State legislatures are increasingly passing statues that encourage participants in the Criminal Justice System to attack the issue of domestic violence more aggressively. Some states still fail to realize that IPV involving a woman that is pregnant should be considered a felony because it affects the well-being of the unborn child.
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
Looking at it from a scientific perspective, she had no mental capacity to make decisions for herself or to express her autonomy. The responsibility was placed upon the parents and the doctors to do so, and collectively. In the end, they managed to avoid a slippery slope fallacy by making this decision, but sparked great controversy doing it. Many claimed that it was an act against God to inte...
Abortion in the United States is a legal form of murder. Each and every year over a million babies are murdered and it must be stopped now before it will continue to get out of hand each and every day. We have discussed in this essay that a fetus is a living humans and not something that can just be thrown away. An unborn child is still a child and he or she needs an opportunity to grow and live a long successful life just like the rest of us have gotten the privilege to do. Abortion cannot go on any longer. More and more live are lost every day.
It is vital that the healthcare professionals to be sensitive to patients’ cultural and spiritual beliefs as well as knowing the law when it involves children health. It is important to find right approach and build a trusting relationship with a child and his/her parents by ethically initiating communication and explanation of the best possible choices for the patient. No doubt parents’ decision-making rights should be recognized and taken into account, but the medical personnel should not ignore any suspected cases of medical neglect or abuse. Sometimes the state authorities have to get involved in order for children to get treated. Right to practice any religion is very respected in this country. Some parents refuse medical treatment based on their religious and spiritual beliefs, but when it comes to treatment that might prevent death or severe impairment or alleviate excruciating pain, children’s health and future autonomy should be defended. Because religious exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws do not equally protect all children and may harm some children, these exemptions should be repealed.