Biomedical Ethics : A Study Of The Line Between God And Medicine

Karen Ann Quinlan was out with her friends on April 14, 1975. Near the end of the night at the party, she consumed large amounts of alcohol and the sedative Valium. This caused her to go into a coma. Karen stayed in the coma for 1 year, until her doctor told her family she was in a ‘vegetative state’, meaning she was brain dead. Her parents had wanted to end her suffering, so they asked for Karen to be taken off life support. The doctors refused them so the Quinlan family took the case to court. At first, the judge had refused to let this happen as the doctors opposed disconnecting the respirator. Stating that it violated the state’s homicide laws. A week later, the Quinlans took this case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, of whom ruled that it was unusual punishment. But ultimately, the Supreme Court, based upon the right to privacy, ruled that Karen was permitted to be taken off. But when she was taken off, she continued breathing. This could be from the cerebellum, which is the primitive brain and it controls involuntary functions such

After declaring Jahi McMath brain dead, the doctors at the Children’s Hospital ordered her to be taken off mechanical ventilation. Her mother, Latasha Winkfield, refused to accept that her daughter was dead and incapable of recovering (du Toit & Miller, 2016). Winkfield believed her daughter was still alive because McMath was breathing and her heart was still beating (du Toit & Miller, 2016). McMath’s family disagreed with the doctors’ report and filed a lawsuit to prevent life support from being discontinued (Paola, 2014).

The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their

The appellant of the Cruzan v. Missouri case was the parents of Nancy Cruzan, Joe Cruzan and Joyce Cruzan. The Cruzans argued that when they made the decision to hook Nancy up to a feeding and hydration tube they were unaware that Nancy would be in the vegetative state permanently, they thought she would make it (Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503).

In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will

Bill C-14 violates the rights of doctors expressed in both Section 2 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Contrary to Section 2's commitment to freedom of religion, belief, and expression for all, Bill C-14 forces doctors to choose between their faith and job security, as those who refuse to refer euthanasia patients risk losing their medical license (Lawrence, 2017). Christian doctor Jane Dobson held back tears when describing the pressure that she faces from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to perform euthanasia, despite it being against her religious beliefs. Dobson felt that she had to betray her faith in order to keep her job (Swan, “Doctors Being Bullied” 2017). Evidently, Dobson did not have

The spiritual significance of illness and suffering is a topic Christians continue to grapple with, as Larchet points out in The Theology of Illness. Scripture offers a wealth of wisdom and cues for understanding illness, health, and healing from a Christian perspective. Larchet analyzes the various and often contradictory Christian positions on health and illness, revealing how attitudes have shifted over time and with changes in medical technology, practice, and ethics. For example, St. Barsanuphius presents a comprehensive analysis of the spiritual significance of illness and suffering. One view holds that illness signifies a lack of faith; another presents illness in terms of a person who is offered the opportunity to develop a stronger faith, or whose faith is being put to a test like the story of Job. Ultimately, the latter remains the most helpful way to approach illness and healing from a Christian perspective. The essence of Christian health care is that, "Healing itself, while resulting from natural processes, actually comes from God," (Larchet 116).

Recently, due to the Carter v. Canada case in 2012, euthanasia, or medically assisted dying, was legalized in Canada. And, with a topic like euthanasia, people’s rights and freedoms become called into question both with, doctors and patients, specifically, freedom of religion, as well as freedom of expression and the life, liberty, and security of the person. Though the case occurred in British Columbia, the province of Ontario created a regulation stating that if a doctor refuses to assist their patients in dying, they must refer them to another doctor who would or, they would face possible disciplinary action. One of the main concerns that arose with this decision was religious doctors arguing that even having to provide referrals go against

Term Paper LaToya N. Rumph Saint Leo University, Business Law Case Study Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) In 1983, while driving home, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in a car crash in which the car flipped over, and she was thrown out, landing face down in a shallow pool of water. Nancy had suffered extensive brain damage which left her in a "persistent vegetative state. " She was kept alive by receiving feedings and nutrition from a feeding tube. At the end of no hope, Cruzan's mother and father requested to end the life-support system, the Missouri state hospital officials declined, because there was no living will or “clear and convincing evidence” that she wanted to be pulled off life support,

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

I have been in the process of developing this Biblical Medical Ethics course since December 14, 2015. I was challenged to find a reasonably priced textbook, or even better, to use online resources, if possible. I spent the next several weeks pouring over possible texts and what was available online. I quickly concluded that textbooks were two things, expensive and hard, sometimes boring, reading. By January 15, 2016, after much research and prayer, I concluded that there would be no text and online was the way to go. I thought the hard part was over, but I was soon to learn that it had just started. Where would I start? How would I keep the course interesting? What blend of video, audio, projects, and short and lengthier readings should be in the course mix?

Am actual account of religious beliefs and shunning of medical treatment was first recorded in 2009 with a Northeast Philadelphia family. The family whose religion shunned traditional medicine allowed an infant son to pass away at a nearby hospital. In 2009 according to an article published in the Newsworks Philadelphia Newspaper written by

saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb . . .’

The autonomy of a competent patient is an issue not often debated in medical ethics. Refusal of unwanted treatment is a basic right, likened to the common law of battery, available to all people capable of a competent choice. These fundamental rules of medical ethics entered a completely new forum as medical technology developed highly effective life-sustaining care during the 20th century. Several watershed cases elucidated these emerging issues in the 1960’s and 70’s, none more effectively than that of Karen Ann Quinlan. Fundamentally, this case established that a once-competent patient without the possibility of recovery could have their autonomy exercised by a surrogate in regard to the