Charlie Gard Case Study

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 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.

Critics have argued that the lack of autonomy of the savior sibling has led to the child being harmed. It is not until the age of eighteen that the child is no longer considered a minor, and therefore, able to make independent medical decisions. However, because of the rigor of unwarranted medical treatments, there have been arguments about the morality of allowing parents to be in full control of the medical decisions for a child whose purpose is keeping alive an ailing sibling. Does the parents’ conflict of interest make making rational decisions impossible on their part? Or simply, their focus is the sick child so everything revolves around that.

Dr. Strauss and Dr. Nemur acted as if Charlie wasn’t a human being. When Algernon died, they knew it would most likely happen to Charlie. Both doctors did nothing to try and save him. They look at him like he was "failed test subject number one". In the Hippocratic Oath it states "I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug." (Lasagna, Louis. "Guides: Bioethics: Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version." "Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version. John Hopkins University, 27 Sep. 2016.) Both doctors showed no emotion towards Charlie. In "Five Steps to Better Decision Making" step two is very important. Step two is about making predictions about the future, or about how the patient will be in the long run. The doctors were to focused on the science that they didn’t think about Charlie's future life. They also should've considered step four. Step four asks "Would one be able to live with themselves after making that decision?" (Dobrin) Dr. Strauss and Dr. Nemur didn't think about how it would affect them if Charlie

In the first commentary by Etzioni and Rosenfeld, they argue that this case and cases similar should be handled not as the assumed respect for patient autonomy first but should be handled based on the benefit and well-being of the patient. Throughout the argument they often explain how patient care should be based on “beneficence” and “nonmaleficence” before autonomy especially in cases where the patient cannot speak for themselves. They support this idea by mentioning the, “Do Not Harm” principle and by explaining that after being put in his current situation, Mr. Jackson might choose the feeding tube over death. Although generally in health care situations it is assumed by many that allowing the patient to make their own decisions independently,

Charlie's doctors did make an ethical decision when they did the surgery. So the first step in ethics is to gather info and understand what you are reading. Charlie's doctors knew what they were doing because they are scientists and doctors. Like when they performed tests with Charlie and Algernon. The second part to an ethical decision is that you need to make an educated guess from facts for the future and they help you get expected results and you have to make a decision that won't hurt people. When the doctors made the choice they made it was based off their research and tests they gave Charlie. Their choice also didn't hurt Charlie

There are many ethical principles healthcare professionals must keep in mind for their patients: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity (Chitty & Black, 2014). These principles may collide with one another and cause the fine line of ethics to be blurred. The principle of autonomy asserts that patients have the right and freedom to determine their own actions and decisions about their care and treatment. This principle is often conflicted with the principle of beneficence. Beneficence is defined as the “doing good” for others where healthcare professionals have the professional obligation to do good for their patients. However if a patient who refuses a treatment and then a doctor proceeds without consent to save their life, does this beneficence supersede the patient’s autonomy and rights to refuse care? When cases involve minors, doctors may be able to legally perform life saving treatments believing it is ethical, but the question is: Is it acceptable to override ones patient’s rights? If so, when? A patient’s right to refuse care is an ongoing ethical dilemma that continues today.

But in doing so, in taking full control over the adolescents “life and health” medical decisions the parents might not knowingly know that they are causing more suffering or pain to their child. One example is B.C case a sixteen year old who would tell his parents who after realizing his health was deteriorating rapidly mentioned to them how he did not want to be placed on a ventilator, even though his parents refused to talk about the outcome of such decisions. Nonetheless after his “pulmonary tests deteriorated rapidly” even after B.Cs wishes to not be placed on a ventilator his parents still placed him on one. Because his wishes were not respected B.C was later found unconscious and unresponsive after a failed suicide attempt which then after his suicide attempt his parents then respected his wishes and when B.C was brought to the hospital his parents requested on his behalf that a do not resuscitate be performed. Because of the parents wanting to decide for B.C who is the one personally dealing with the illness and not the parents they prolonged his life but they also prolonged his suffering which then lead him to try and end his life. It is hard for a parent to hear their kid say they would like to

When a person has impairment, they are often seen by society as defective. In “Flowers for Algernon”, Charlie realizes he is seen by humanity as inadequate. Charlie has the surgery to fix what is wrong with him in an attempt for the doctors to be able to fix other mentally impaired people. The surgery to fix Charlie was initially considered a success; notwithstanding, Charlie quickly learned that the surgery was a failure. While Daniel Keyes in “Flowers for Algernon” portrayed hope for a mentally impaired man, Charlie Gordon, the operation failed with devastating consequences.

The parent’s decision to continue their child on life support is justified by the principles of autonomy, justice, and natural law theory. Of course someone that has full autonomy can decide what is best for his or her child. The mother of Emilio is a firm believer in treating anyone who still has breath. Her son may have had a life threatening disease, but that shouldn’t determine how his life should end. She wanted him to die naturally without physicians telling her when they were going to cut him off of all life-sustaining treatment. She shouldn’t have to fight for wanting her son to die naturally. Her autonomous decision of keeping her child on life support should be well respected by the hospital. It’s almost as if the hospitals are making

The underlying issue, in this case, is what Charlie’s parents wanted and what was in the best interests of Charlie. We have an issue of autonomy, or “a person’s rational capacity for self-governance” (Vaughn, 2017, p. 81), for both the parents and child. Charlie’s parents wanted to try every possible treatment even though, at a certain point, continuing to treat Charlie would no longer do anything for him. This involves several moral values, including the responsibility of the parents to make decisions about their child’s treatment and the responsibility of the doctors to do what is best for Charlie. Charlie’s MDDS is incurable, and at the time of his diagnosis, there were no approved treatments for the disorder. He was getting progressively worse and was being kept alive by the use of a ventilator after suffering from a seizure that caused brain damage. At this point, the hospital deemed Charlie’s treatment to be futile and they decided to stop his treatment. Their decision to stop treatment was

Suppose a parent has a child suffering from a disease that is slowly killing them, such as acute promyelocytic leukemia, APL, or types of severe anemia to give a general idea. Eventually, their kidneys are going to shut down and despite years of fighting, the only way to keep that child alive is having them hooked up to machines until their organs completely give out and they die or become comatosed, in a vegetative state. All therapies, tests, treatments, and options have been exhausted. Wouldn’t a parent do anything to save their child? After discovering that neither parent nor their siblings are compatible for transfusions or organ donations, the family does the research and finds that there is another, somewhat tabooed,

With the help of both ethical and medical expert, it should help make the facts of the case clearer. “The second element is that families are able to secure desired treatment if they are able to identify alternative healthcare providers who are prepared and able to provide treatment.” (http:blogpracticalethics.ox.ac.ux) With the knowledge of Affordable care act or also known as Obamacare patients' and parents' should be able to look for the best medical treatment for their child. Mrs. Yates explains that they were denied their final wish. “We’ve had no control over our son’s life and no control over our son’s death.” (nytimes.com). If these healthcare professionals had children who were denied the right to make decisions for their own child then they would also look elsewhere to try to save their child’s life. In Charlie Gard’s Case doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital determined that there was nothing more that can be done and urged that life support needed to be removed. Charlie suffered from a genetic condition known as Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome. Dr. Michio Hirano, a

For instance, the case of Charlie gard, an infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a rare genetic disorder that causes progressive brain damage and muscle failure, MDDS has no treatment and usually causes death in infancy. After the child have undergone many experiments by the physician to save his life which was not successful, the physician concluded that Charlie’s condition had been deteriorated to the extent that further experimental treatment will be

All in all, I believe that if a child is suffering from a condition that would only lead to death than parents should keep their child’s feelings in mind when making a decision. The argument in this article I initially found it very hard to choose a side. In one light, all things should be tried because miracles do happen but on