Baby Theresa Case Summary

The choice to have a child is life changing. Parents are given nine months to prepare for their lives to change completely. All of a sudden they are not the only person they are responsible for. Reitha and Ken Lakeberg’s circumstance was a bit more complex than the usual change in responsibilities. Instead of the one child to make decisions for, there were two, and they happened to be conjoined. Instead of having to consent for one baby they had two. This is the first ethical issue in this story. Autonomy is the right to make decisions for yourself, although with children the informed consent has to come from their parents. Yes it makes sense that children do not always fully understand and need guidance from parents. But when it is a life or death situation and there is no way to tell what they want circumstances become complicated. What gives parents or doctors the right to decide which twin should try to be saved and which twin should be sacrificed. “Mercifully, Reitha and Ken had been spared a Sophie’s Choice of selecting which of their offspring would die. Doctors made the decision strictly on medical grounds—which twin had the

At 5am Officer Singh called SA Lyn Brumaire who was on duty at Coral Tower because Jordan Horvat was worried a resident of 902, Stephanie Lee, was missing. Upon keying into the room with PSO Tabiri, the resident in questions, Stephanie Lee was found to be missing from her apt. Officer Tabiri then decided to take a statement from SA and resident Macayla Caso. Ms. Horvat was also not present in the room. Ms. Caso was under the assumption that Ms. Horvat had gone home since she was packing earlier in the day and the sheets were stripped off her bed.

The underlying issues in both cases are racial discrimination. For Cheryl Boulden in the affirmative action case the issue is being “an African American woman among the good ol’ boys in Indiana.” She was recruited because of race and her permanent handicap was seen as an asset for a diversity program lacking any. Yet these qualities made her a target of racism. Susan Finn’s ethnic discrimination presents a dilemma of how to deal with a contract physician’s abusive behavior “toward Hispanics and female staff as well as patients” (Reeves, 2006, p. 79). While the issues of racial and gender discrimination is not unusual, the failure of these agencies to address multiple complaints is.

How could Sara and her husband be so consumed in their sadness that they brought another child into the world just to take pieces of her to help their other child? How is that legal and how could the child give consent to that? What medical professional recommends that these hurting parents should do such a thing? What makes it acceptable to make off the record, risqué recommendations? Unfortunately, Sara and her husband weren’t thinking rationally.

NF wasn't feeling and communicated that he had a stressful day. NF wasn't able to obtain Isabella's social security card because he didn't have a credible form of identification. NF mentioned that he went to the Mexican Consulate to obtain his passport. NF will be taking a day off next week again to apply for services (WIC and Welfare). NF doesn't know Isabella's social security number and doesn't have Isabella's social security card. SM provided NF with the furniture referral form for Isabella's bed. Isabella was being a little defiant during the visit. Isabella was very demanding of NF's attention. Isabella was interrupting NF when he was speaking and would refuse to use the bathroom on her own. Isabella was refusing to eat the Jell-O she

In The Giver, new children that are twins, or that are born unhealthy, are sent to elsewhere. When twins are born into the community, the one that weighs less is disposed of. "Well, they can't have two identical people around! Think how confusing it would be!" (pg.3). In the US babies are under life support is they are unhealthy. In a way this is not humane because the doctors are keeping the parents hopes up and the baby would have a very hard life or not live past a year. The decision about the child’s life should be up to the parents. The decision to keep the baby on life support is theirs to make. Parents usually keep both of their twins. This is humane because if they are both healthy and the parents can support them, then they should be able to take

I believe that although it may be a hard decision at some point it must be decided when enough is enough. Baby Charlotte was born with the majority of her brain protruding from her skull. Assisted by her

Is the selective non-treatment on handicapped newborns in a NICU unit moral? To start off, a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is an intensive care unit that specializes in the treatment of ill or premature newborns. This is also where a handicapped newborn would be placed. Just like any other argument, there are two sides. Some, like Raymond Duff and Robert Weir, argue that the selective non-treatment of a handicapped newborn is indeed moral. Of course, there are others, like Dr. C. Everett Koop and Paul Ramsey, that argue that selective non-treatment is not moral at all. By weighing both sides of the argument, one can decide for themselves if the selective non-treatment of a handicapped newborn is moral or not.

From the time Anna was born, whenever Kate fell ill and needed a donor, Kate and Anna’s parents did not hesitate to use Anna’s body without asking her. Parents should not harm one child to save another. Anna decides to go to a lawyer and sue her parents for the rights of her own body. The lawyer makes an ethical decision to be a

“It made me wonder, thought, what would have happened if Kate had been healthy. Certainly, I would not be part of this family.” A quotation from the 2004 book My Sisters Keeper by Jodi Picoult. (My Sister 's Keeper) A book about a girl who was born as a donor baby to help her sister not die. In the book Anna wants the rights to her body and goes to court to get them. Why shouldn’t she, how horrible would it be to have to always give a part of your “unwanted” body and I don’t believe that donor babies, also known as savior siblings, are a good thing in the world. First, we will genetically choose the problems with donor babies. Then, we will dissect over the causes, and finally,

Fetus is totally dependent on a woman’s body to survive. Fetus is actually separate and distinct human being. They have the potential to have a life full of happiness regardless if they have a disability or not, they should be respected because they are human beings. All life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. The sanctity of human life must be affirmed both prior, and subsequent, to birth.

A young husband sits next to his wife, holding her hand while the tears fall from both of their cheeks. Several hours earlier, they were blessed with the sight of their baby girl – the one they’ve been waiting to meet for what seemed like an eternity. Holding her in their arms and seeing her perfect round face for the first time was supposed to be one of the most joyous moments of their lives – however it will forever live on as one of the moments they wished had never occurred. Their baby, one that had been healthy the entire nine months of pregnancy, had been stillborn. A representative from the organ transplantation recovery unit comes to speak to the couple, providing information about organ and tissue donation, and ask them about their thoughts and feelings on donation of their baby’s viable tissues and organs, all the while emphasizing the essential window of time that is available. Already full of heartache, the couple now faced one of the toughest decisions they’ve had to make in life yet.

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.

Charlie’s parent wanting or even deciding to do this procedure is a choice of immortality. The parents would not be respecting the worth of this embryo, who is above price. This is a human being, who soon has the potential of being a baby. They are not valuing the embryo as a baby, child or human. They are just valuing the service he or she will provide for them. The procedure would allow Charlie’s parents to have a child that would be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. This would probably save Charlie’s life. There is no dignity here, therefore the parents are acting immorally. The parents should treat that soon to be child as a person with dignity. Not just having the child as pleasure of saving another child’s life. They are treating it as an instrument. Charlie’s parents should recognize the embryo that may best be able to donate red blood cells, which would soon be a child, as a person capable of making reasonable choices. That egg is person and is does not lack the

Both the mother and the fetus are innocent human lives. Even though the fetus may not be capable of understanding, it is still a life and is dependent upon the mother for life. However, the fetus