Case Study Of Charlie Gard

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

When a patient is unable to make decisions for himself or herself, their caregivers and those who know them are appointed to make the decisions based on what the patient would have wanted. This is called surrogate decision making. According to the article Terri Schiavo and End-of-Life Decisions “when surrogate decision makers and caregivers cannot agree upon what that choice would have been, they may turn to the courts to determine either what the now-incapacitated patient would have chosen or who is best suited to choose as the patient would have” (Mathes, 2005)

We came to this decision because we felt that if a few professional psychiatrist can render him mentally competent than he should be allowed to make his own decisions because it is moral. This is moral because people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, and as Cowart says it is, “the right to control your own body is a right you’re born with…” (Cowart 2). However, this is refuted when that person cannot make rational decisions because that person would be mentally incompetent. People that are mentally incompetent are incapable of making decisions that are in their best interest. We also discussed his mother and how all she cared about is for him to receive treatment which we thought was a bit selfish. This is a typical parental perspective considering that parents do not want to outlive their children. However, she should have sought out what was best for him and what he was going to be happy with and not her. As a group we also felt that he should have received better pain treatment especially since Cowart found out later that they could have done more for his treatment. If someone is in as much pain as he was and when a doctor is confronted with the request to die, that doctor should be doing everything he or she can to bring down the pain.

This Rights model, more specifically Ashley’s human rights is very present in the article. It could be argued that she doesn’t need or require the treatment to medically improve her life. The Equal and Human Rights Commission (2008) suggest that human rights are the freedoms that we are all entitled to as a result of our shared humanity. I understand that she is unable to speak and is unlikely to have the mental capacity to make that decision but does that automatically transfer that decision to her parents? The United Nations Convention on the Rights for a Child (1989) plays an important part of the Rights model for this text as I feel it both supports and opposes the parent’s actions. Article 23 concentrates on children’s disability by stating that ‘Children who have any kind of disability have the right to special care and support, as well as all the rights in the Convention, so that they can live full and independent lives.’ This could support Ashley’s parent’s’ motives. However, Article 3 states ‘The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children.’ In this case are the parents doing what’s best for Ashley or themselves? This is a good example where the Rights model can get itself in a twist!

A moral justification for genetic treatment is only as accurate as the justification of disease. In the realms of objective science and the use of genetic testing, Kitcher argues that the basis for terminating a pregnancy due to a severe syndrome can also lead to the basis for termination due to an undesired sex or possibly even homosexuality. Ultimately, Kitcher supports only a minimalist approach to the use of

Ethics, in our society, are the moral principles that govern our behavior, dictating what is right from wrong. The specifics of ethics changes as values in our society change and evolve. This occurs in Rebecca Skloots book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. One major reoccurring theme in the book is the lack of informed consent and autonomy. Fortunately, now there are safeguards which protect human rights in regard to health care and research. The Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, now part of the Department of Health and Human Services, created The Belmont Report, which is one such safeguard establishing principles for all human research (USDHHS, 1979). This paper will discuss the ethical issue of informed consent within The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the disregard to parts of the Belmont Report, as well as compare the role of the nurse in charge of Henrietta’s care versus the standards of care set for modern nurses.

Under the US law, any kid under the age of 18 years old considered to be a child and need his parental consent form regarding any activity that involves the kid including a medical condition that is listed in this case (Byrne, Rapee & Sweller, 2017)So, parents have the right either to give or denies a consent. When parents faced with a medical procedure that they do not agree and believe in because of their religious background, they have a right to be present another treatment plan that doesn’t go against their beliefs (Byrne, Rapee & Sweller, 2017). From the case study above, it doesn’t say anything about an optional treatment plan being presented to the family, which might be a big problem that the doctor might be held accountable for. The other factors need to be seen is the doctor’s professional duty. Doctors have an ethical, professional,and constitutional duty to save life when they are faced with a situation that is called an emergency (Hashimoto, 2011) From the case study the kid was in a critical health situation because he has a meningitis. Meningitis is a medical emergency that is caused by an infection and can be a life-threatening situation ( Baldridge, 2013).Lastly, the kid has the legal right to be safe under his parents or any person who have a legal guardianship, however, if parents are putting kid’s life under a situation that might lead to fatality, it is called a child abuse. In this case, parents can lose the custody of the child and can not even able have any saying about the child

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

The decision of the Supreme Court could be considered ethically right. It was right to revoke the physicians’ decision, as it wasn’t in agreement with what the Canadian Health Care Consent act (HCCA) section 26 stipulates “A health practitioner shall not administer a treatment under section 25 if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, expressed a wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the treatment.”3 Also, in medical ethics, it is the obligation of health care providers to allow the patients to make their own medical decisions. They should have autonomy in their decision making, that’s if they completely comprehend all the medical diagnosis, prognosis and all outcome of treatment options4. Starson had a full understanding of his options, he was fully

Mr. Revis continues to be in transition to move into the independent living home. I spoke at length with Stacy the Rainbow rehab case manager on 3/30/18. Mr. Revis continues to have inappropriate sexual contact with fellow patients. He is not picking up on cues to stop unwanted advances. He has been at work using his phone to text and sends pictures. Staff continues to work with him regarding this behavior. He also has a court date on 4/5/18 to explore his guardianship.

In terms of the intensity and duration, the disease is life-long and is accompanied by increasing emotional and physical pain. Most of this pain is derived from slowly loosing major bodily functions like walking, speaking, eating, blinking, and even breathing (Canadian medical journal: http://www.cmaj.ca) The extent of those affected include himself and his family members who are most likely suffering emotionally as well. The degree of pain and the extent to which this pain affects others is greater than the pleasure that could be derived from allowing the disease to progress further in answering no to Rob’s request. Thus, under utilitarian principles, the doctor should uphold Rob’s request for physician-assisted death.

The advancement of medical technology has made it possible to detect medical abnormalities while a child is still a fetus and can create difficult choices for parents to make if severe anomalies are discovered. There are many theories regarding the moral status of the fetus that can be applied when deciding how to proceed if these abnormalities are detected. In the fetal abnormality case study, Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson each have varying opinions on what course of action to take based on these different theories of moral status.

This essay will introduce the details of phenylketonuria and Huntington’s disease. Using these facts, the difference in screening policy between the diseases will be morally justified. The arguments will relate to the desire for informed autonomy, the differing prognoses for the diseases, and the avoidance of moral conflict. Then, using a test case, arguments will be made for circumstances in which one would be morally obligated under the principles of beneficence and justice to be tested for Huntington’s disease. Criticisms for that stance will be noted using the principle of nonmaleficence and rebutted with further arguments for beneficence. Overall, the essay will demonstrate that while Huntington’s disease screening is justifiably not legally required, unlike mandatory PKU screening, testing for Huntington’s disease can be a moral obligation.

As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.

What would you do if you were caring for a child whose condition would eventually kill them, but the parents wanted you to try every treatment? In the article “When Living Is a Fate Worse Than Death” by Christine Mitchell, the main point consists of this very question. The choice that hospital staff sometimes must make between keeping a child alive knowing that their condition will eventually take over or trying every procedure in an attempt to keep them alive. I believe that Mitchell does a great job in stating her claim favoring the side that a child with an illness that would, in time, take their life should be allowed to die peacefully rather than enduring painful procedures and bouncing between home and hospitals.