Baby Hope Charity

People don’t visit the people who are dying because it is seen as if it is a good thing for society, the hospital has a lot of technology but they don't use t because for them it's like they're dead already. The group of children at the hospital is to be conditioned that people dying is a good thing for their society. The nurse is concerned that if children continue to watching him then they will have have to restart the process of the conditioning and it will make them think that people matter more than others and that dying is

A baby deserves to experience and witness life’s beauties. If the mother tragically loses her life during childbirth, it is well worth it.

Also, sometimes a parent's love makes them unable to let go. I've seen so many parents put their needs above their infant's because they just can't bear to suffer the grief of losing a child. It's heartbreaking when you can see parents in total denial and you know that the end will come one way or another but they just can't accept it. I don't know if that's the case here or not, but it's certainly a possibility.

Vivian Bearing did not show a lot of kindness or compassion to her own students as she did not think that it was important. Now as her death is approaching she comes to realize that is what she has been missing. Her nurse Susie patiently explains the treatment plan to Vivian in terms that she can understand; including the DNR (do not resuscitate) and that it was her decision, Susie allowed Vivian some control over her life by giving her this choice while she fought for her dignity. As her nurse strives to provide her with compassion and empathy this is important to Vivian in her final days as compassion is connected to our human spirit; as she was approaching death (Frost, 1999, p127). Patients often experience quicker healing rates when they receive compassion as opposed to those who do not (Dossey, 2007). Susie told Vivian when she was semi conscious that they were putting a catheter in; even though Doctor Jason said :why are you bothering?” Some people, such as nurse Susie, will go out of their way to make others comfortable and put the patients need before there own, we just have to be mindful of emotional burnout if our own needs are not being met (Brehony, 1999, p

In Edith Wharton’s book Summer the main character Charity Royall is the daughter of the most influential man in town and yet she doesn’t want anything more than to escape from her small town of North Dormer and her lonely father figure that inhabits it. Mr. Royall took her down from the Mountain when she was a child and has raised her as his own since she was young, but after the death of his wife he has resorted to drinking to heal his loneliness, and later in his weakened state turns to Charity to cure his loneliness. Though his first proposal could be seen as “disgusting” and “incest” in that he tries to enter Charity’s room while he is drunk, when he later asks her to marry him for the third time, he is clear headed and believes this is the best option for Charity. At first Charity is disgusted by herself for giving in to Mr. Royall’s advances, after a silent agreement between her and Mr. Royall in which she realizes he has no intention of making her do anything she doesn’t want to do, she realizes that this is the best outcome for her and accepts her fate.

This is particularly true in an unexplained saddened death. Babies are not supposed to die before their parents. Because the death of an infant is a disruption of the natural order, it is traumatic for parents, family, and friends. Not having a plausible cause of death, the suddenness of the tragedy, and the involvement of the legal system make a SIDS death especially difficult, leaving a great sense of loss and a need for understanding.

According to genetics and social science research there are striking differences between White and minority populations affected with breast cancer in the U.S. These disparities are likely due to a combination of cultural, environmental and genetic factors that differ between the groups. Historically, scientists have separately explored either the genetic or the social/behavioral contributions to cancer. The research team profiled in this case study takes the position that we cannot effectively grasp the complexity of cancer etiology, nor design appropriate

He might argue that though the child will suffer, he still has a potential future in which he formulate goals, and have experiences and projects. However, we must note that during his argument, Marquis says "If the patient's future is intolerable...we want our account to allow killing the patient" and that "it is the value of the patient's future which is doing the work in rendering the morality of killing the patient intelligible" (561). Obviously, a quandary arises. Does the fetus in our example have a future that is less valuable than that of a normal one? Can we justify aborting this fetus, because although he will be rational and most likely capable of having experiences, the scope of his suffering will be exceedingly great? Are we in any sort of position to prescribe the value of someone else's future without knowing exactly how it will play out? So while it is plausible that Marquis would still argue from an anti-abortionist stance due to its potential future, this decision will very probably not sit well with the parents who have to watch their child suffer throughout his shortened life. This is one ambiguity that exists in Marquis' argument that has no easy answer, and is worth noting.

Although some could argue that the children are still alive, if they are unable to talk or doing anything else then they really have no life, they cannot do anything on their own, it is very likely that they cannot even talk or eat. They will not be missing out on anything that life has to offer by remaining alive considering that they cannot do anything at all in the state they are in. Others might call this murder but again, these children are doing nothing but suffering and to keep them alive would be a disservice to them and their parents. I am not saying that they do not deserve to be alive because I think everyone has a right to live, but if that life is going to be full of nothing but pain and suffering then there is just no point in living. The pain that these children feel will not go away and their suffering will not diminish by magic, the only option for them to be relived is to die. There could be many objections to this claim, like someone could argue that it is so wrong for someone to want their children to die but I do not think anyone could truly understand the pain and suffering that they go through as parents watching their children go through these terrible experiences and also losing everything that they have. I may not understand what they are going through but I can sympathize for them, and anyone else who has a child with a debilitating disease similar or not to muscular dystrophy will be able to understand what they are going through and they may even agree that ending the suffering of the children is the best thing for

Every life should be spared and deontologically the duty of the parent is not to create harm in one child to save another child. It’s wrong to take something away from a child who isn’t old enough to give consent. In Dickey’s non-fiction article, “Who Will Save the Savior Sibling?”, Maura Dickey is informing parents that the idea of a savior sibling is wrong even though it may save another child’s life because the savior child can’t defend for or in some cases

CNN published an article written by Elizabeth Cohen titled, Heaven over hospital: Dying girl, age 5, makes a choice. The article describes a scenario of a five year old girl, Julianna Snow, deciding between going to heaven or going back to the hospital. Julianna is dying of an incurable disease known as Carcot-Marie-Tooth disease; this is a neurodegenerative illness in which the myelin sheaths that cover the nerves are not correctly developed which causes the nerves underneath to degenerate. Doctors said that if Julianna received one more bacterial infection she will have to choose between heaven and going back to the hospital.

Also, the article talks about how every time the child went to the hospital, the child became weaker and weaker. I believe that 16 months is more than enough time to try many different procedures and if the child became weaker and weaker each time the decision should have became more and more clear to let the child die peacefully rather than suffering.

Thus, from a Kantian standpoint, it is wrong to kill Theresa and take her organs to save others because then they would be using her merely as a means to other infants’ ends. However, to play devils advocate, “using a person” typically means you are violating their autonomy- their right to live and decide for themselves according to their own desires and values. With that being said, Baby Theresa was not autonomous because she had no consciousness, she had no ability to ever decide what was in her best interest and desire. So, technically, the Judge of the circuit court was not respecting the parents’ dignity of wanting to donate Theresa's organs.

| In this option Michelle’s parents take the approach that one healthy child is a better option than one very sick child and another that could potentially be injured trying to save the sick child’s life. The parents are basically going to be left with one healthy child and the grief involved with the impending death of Michelle.

Does one try to save a premature baby who has little chance of survival? When do doctors or family members decide to "pull the plug" on a loved one? When is organ donation the correct choice? Is this patient the one on which God will choose to perform a miracle? What about a postmortem delivery? Is it realistic to be able to have a child postmortem?