Baby Doe Law Essay

The Safely Surrendered Baby Law has responded to an increasing number of newborn infant deaths due to abandonment in unsafe locations. The Safely Surrendered Baby Law was first established in Jaunary 2001, eventually being signed permanently into state law in January 2006. The law’s objective is to be a safeguard for newborn infants at risk of abandonment by encouraging parents or persons with lawful custody to safely surrender the infant within 72 hours of birth, no questions asked (California Department of Social Services, 2007). A baby can be safely surrendered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An identity bracelet is given to the baby so that if the parents decide to keep the baby, they have up to 14 days to change their mind (Santa Clara

One reason that the responsibilities of physician-scientists can be easily conflicting is that physicians must sacrifice the interests of their patients for the sake of research that could help better society (pg. 261). This states that scientists have the wheel. They are in control of the situation and the physician does not matter. A physician cannot provide all the information that they would like to give to their patient because a lot of the time the physician does not know all the information (pg. 261). A physician has a right to give the patient the best treatment, however the scientist must look for what will benefit humanity in general (pg. 261). However, once the patient signs the consent form, the physician cannot advocate for the patient only because they signed their body over for research so that way they can help better society. The thing is that if the physician must sacrifice the interests of the patient then why should researchers even include them in the relationship (pg.

The sole reason for the Safely Surrendered Baby law is to prevent child abandonment in infants, which can usually lead to death. Parents are known to also to commit neonaticide (the killing of a baby on the day of its birth) in other cases. This matter has made itself known through media, which makes it spread like wildfire; but the probable causes are never listed properly. The complexity of the arguments surrounding baby abandonment is also deepened by the multitude of cultures.

If a patient goes to the doctor for a yearly check-up or bloodwork and the doctor and/or the physician finds that they have an incurable disease, do they need to know? Or if the patient (if they are a child or simply have family/friends there who they wish not to be told) has information they need to give to their doctor/physician and they tell them after everyone leaves, does the doctor have the right or must they tell the parents, relatives, or friends. This is ethics (specifically in the biomedical field), according to Discoverer ProQuest, “Bioethics is the branch of ethics, or moral decision-making, that deals with the problems of biology and medicine. It requires disciplined, systematic reflection on these difficult issues.”(Bioethics

The Pregnancy Act Law was the one of several law topics that was of interest to me. I see many, many examples of this. Whereas Employees can take action it is often difficult for them to do that for fear of damaging career prospects, or the 'discrimination' is not overt / explicit, but more subtle (glass ceilings, looked over for promotions, unwillingness to provide flexible working). For some Employers it may be an unconscious discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless. For me, the Pregnancy Act Law stood out significantly as I can relate through all four of my pregnancies. I have found that some organizations are aware of these issues and choose to ignore them. Some are getting away with discrimination. Statistics show that discrimination through pregnancy conditions is on the rise.

Informed consent is defined as “permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences” and is the backbone to honorable physician patient interactions. Unfortunately, throughout history there have been many cases where physicians have used a patient’s lower socioeconomic status to manipulate the obtaining of informed consent. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics predates back to 1847, yet cases continue to arise directly breaking their key principles. These principles include autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence; and if followed ensure patients receive a high quality of care. Informed consent prior to any participation in experiments or procedures is essential for physicians to act within these guidelines. Autonomy allows patients to have free will and make decisions without coercion. Justice keeps all individuals in mind so resources are distributed fairly and all individuals are treated the same. Beneficence and Non-maleficence focus on the intent of the procedure to do only good and no harm. Even with these principles established there are discrepancies in on how they unfold in a clinical setting. The American Medical Association states physicians should assess their patient’s understanding of their medical condition, the recommended treatments, and document the physician-patient interaction. The Tuskegee, Abdullah vs Pfizer, and The Skid Row Cancer Studies are a few cases where these principles were ignored so physician and big pharmaceutical

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

Confidentiality: This is a very important theory now in days with many people having their personal information stolen every year. Mostly for financial gain but sometimes also to get health care/treatment done. In regards to personal healthcare issues it just common sense to respect others and their privacy in such that one should not talk about a patients diagnosis or treatment other than with that patient or spouse. Sometimes people also keep things to themselves so they don’t bother or worry family members whatever the reasoning behind it, it is up to that patient to release info about themselves not the healthcare professional

Children, along with elders with dementia, people with severe disabilities, and those in an unconscious or vegetative state are not treated as autonomous individuals in the medical world. The principle of autonomy can be defined as “giving[ing] rational, competent persons the right to make medical decisions that affect their own lives…because individuals know their own values, beliefs, and preferences. (Parks 217) Children are not considered autonomous because they are not able to fully understand what is going on and, therefore, cannot give educated and informed consent. Children look up to their parents. If a mother or father brings the idea of euthanasia to the child, they will be “loading a gun.” The child may question if euthanasia is what their parents want for them and may assume by implication

The dignity and freedom of a patient should be respected so that people can make their own choices and develop their own life plans in the context of the society they belong to. . An individual has every right to take their own choices. A health care provider cannot treat a patient without his or her permission. If the patient is unable give the consent, then a lawful surrogate can provide consent. A lawful surrogate requires certain criteria like competence or has decision making capacity and is capable of realizing the consequence of consent. The consent from the patient may be implicit or explicit depending on the seriousness of health issues. Serious health issues like intrusive procedures

It’s April 9th, 1982 and an expectant family is preparing to welcome a beautiful baby boy into the world. It is an exciting, joyful, and nerve wracking experience as the parents enter the hospital. Everyone is hoping for the best and praying that everything will go perfectly. After hours of labor, the child is born, however, something is wrong. The care providers are rushing around and blocking the view of the baby until a doctor comes in to explain that your baby’s life is in danger. The baby is severely disabled and needs extensive medical care to survive. The family is faced with a choice, put your child through endless and painful medical procedures that many not work or decline treatment. The choice is yours, what would you do? This

Several state courts of the country have taken power over cases where parental rights are being violated and parents fail to provide for their children the necessary medical care they need due to different beliefs and religious practices. However, what happens when a crucial issue involves a child who has not fully developed and cannot make decisions on his or her own? In Jefferson vs. Griffin-Spalding County Hospital, the supreme court of the state of Georgia ruled unethically against Jefferson violating her right to autonomy by ordering her to have a cesarean section and take the necessary medical procedures in order to save the life of herself and her fetus regardless of her religious practices and beliefs.

In medicine, because of the principles of self-determination, the patient should be given all the relevant information in order to allow them to give fully informed consent. However, when doctors exercise the therapeutic privilege, they apply their professional opinion to assess when information should be withheld. When a concept as fundamental as consent is undermined extensive research is necessary. Hence, why I want to investigate doctors justifications and patients’ reactions to therapeutic privilege.

Not only is it a doctor's obligation to treat a patient the right way, but they need to keep them informed on their health, what prescription they need, etc. Letting their patients know everything about their health is an expectation so people can prepare for what's coming a them , how to take care of themselves , what to do and what not to do. For example, once a patient knows that they would

Patient has the right to know and receives information about his condition no matter what the family member has decided. Respect for his autonomy is crucial. The patient has the right to make his own