Academic Scholarship Christine Platt DeVry A 17-year-old teen declined to take chemotherapy to treat her Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This is a serious ethical dilemma that comes from two ethical principles. She should be able to have the right to choose what she wants to do. But a doctor/ hospital must also do what is best for their patients. The problem is that she is a 17 year old and is still a minor so she is cared for by her parents. Because she is 17 and is still a minor her parents have the legal right to make the decision for her. Her mother feels that she should be able to choose what she wants to do regarding her health and she supports her decision. “Courts have the authority to overrule parents when their medical decisions …show more content…
8, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision and ruled that Cassandra must continue to undergo chemotherapy against her will. Separate lawyers for the mother and daughter sought to have the teen considered a “mature minor,” which would grant her the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, but the court declined to rule on that aspect, siding with the medical judgment that there is an 85 percent chance of surviving Hodgkin’s lymphoma by treating with chemotherapy.” “The legal barrier to respecting Cassandra’s autonomy remains, but the ethics of the case are murky. If this were a one-shot treatment — perhaps painful or uncomfortable but over quickly — it would be easy to conclude that forced medical treatment would do more good than harm. But that is not clearly the case when the patient has to endure for as long as six months the discomforts of chemotherapy.” (Macklin, Ruth. 2015). Chemotherapy is uncomfortable and can very painful for as long as six months. There is no way for the doctors, the teen or the courts to know if the cancer can be cured or in what time. This case has several conflicts due to the many people involved in the dilemma. The first conflict is what the teen wants and what her rights are. Then consider the parent’s feelings and needs for their daughter. Finally, the healthcare individuals have a duty to the teen’s well-being and life
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
Well, I don’t know how traditional government would rule this case, but I know that modern government would agree with the judge's decision based on the fact that the child's is in need of urgent medical care. As for my own opinion, I think the final decision should base on the child herself if she wants to get treatment or not. However, at the age of 12 she is still too young to make her own decision at this point, although her parent cannot refuse treatment due to their religious reason and also because the child cannot decide for herself. I agree with the judge's decision because it’s just the right thing to do. We cannot sit and watch a child in pain of a medical condition when we can give her the proper treatment but refused because
If you have the right, you're entitled to exercise the right." (Zadrozny, Brandy 1). “Minors attempting to refuse treatment, particularly when it is potentially life-saving, have experienced difficulties having their refusal accepted, and are usually found to be incompetent to do so by the courts, despite the UNCRC guaranteeing children's rights to be consulted and to participate in decisions made about their lives.”(Mackenzie, Robin, and John Watts 1). Minors refusing treatment is found incompetent even though the UNCRC allows minors to participate in decisions about their lives. Cassandra C. was viewed as immature for running away even though she showed all capabilities of refusing treatment. Restrained to one room with no one to talk to, no friends allowed to see you, and even her own mother kept away from her was cruel. Refusing treatment is not the decision to die it is the decision to refuse what the doctor believes is best .Also to seek healthier alternative options.Refusing treatment is not about a life or death choice it is about what is decided for themselves and the rights that are presented to
right to choose what happens to his or her own body, but the life of a patient should not be put
Informed consent, by definition, requires the administering health care provider to disclose appropriate information to a competent patient, and allow that patient sufficient time to choose, voluntarily, whether to accept or refuse treatment (Appelbaum, 2007). For children, the law upholds an inability to provide their own informed consent as they lack the decisive ability inherent in consent (Appelbaum, 2007). Thereby, for children, a proxy, as determined by the state laws, chooses the course of treatment on their behalf (Appelbaum, 2007). Furthermore, for children of, an undesignated, reasonable age, a consultation about assent, or willingness for acceptance of treatment or care, should follow a guardian’s decision (Appelbaum, 2007). Responsibility
When should an adolescent’s autonomy be upheld? If the adolescent is in a life and death situation and can undergo treatment that may allow them to live, should she/he be forced to go through it against his/her will? Cassandra C., a 17 year old did not want chemotherapy for her life-threatening Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cassandra believed that she had the right to forgo her chemotherapy treatment based on her autonomy; moreover, her mother supported her desire to not have chemotherapy. However, the State intervened, took her into custody, and forced her to go through the chemotherapy. As a result of the forced treatment, Cassandra's lymphoma is in recession. However, in this case, the right of autonomy outweighs the possible beneficence; it is more
The multidisciplinary team heavily relied on their professional ethical principles while intervening. The professionals strongly believed in the potential benefits that would be achieved with chemotherapy. Even though teenagers have the legal right to make their own healthcare decisions, the healthcare staff acted on principles they believed where for the greater
In her case some people thought that since she was still a minor that she shouldn’t be able to make these decisions. But the court said that she was a mature minor and one person even placed her at a maturity level of someone between the ages of 18-21. Valarie Blake, an associate professor law at West Virginia University states, “her refusals were based on a sincere religious belief and not a desire to die, and she fully understood that the consequences of her decision would be death (AMA Journal of Ethics n.p.).” She knew that without getting the treatment that she would die, but with her religious beliefs she refused, standing for what she believed in. It is also said by Valarie Blake, “Without transfusions, professionals expected E.G. to live no more than a month, and either way her long-term prognosis was poor—persons with her condition had a predicted survival rate of 20 to 25 percent (AMA Journal of Ethics n.p.).” Without her treatment she would most likely not live but she cared about what she believed in and said no to the treatment, even if that meant death. Valarie Blake also said, “The court was swayed by the fact that E.G.’s mother agreed with the refusal and suggested that the outcome could have been different if E.G.’s mother had wanted her to seek treatment (AMA Journal of Ethics n.p.).” With the fact that her mother agreed with her decision to not have treatment done, it
The situation described above is an ethical dilemma due to the conflicting principles (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008). If the nurse refuses to give Mike the chemotherapy, he or she is violating the legal power parents have to give informed medical consent for their children. However, if the nurse gives the chemotherapy they lose the trusting relationship between nurse and patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore the ethical principles and legal issues related to Mike’s situation of a nurse and how it affects their ethical decision on whether to continue or discontinue Mike’s chemotherapy.
In recent years, the controversy of parental rights in the refusal and consent to medical treatment for their child is at the forefront. It is generally agreed that the parents’ rights to consent or refusal of treatment should be limited to those decisions that are in the child’s best interest. Yet the notion of “best interests” is very difficult to determine and define. Although parents have the legal obligation to ensure the welfare of their child and to not take actions that may cause them harm, the medical decision making process has particular ambiguity. For instance, what types of decisions
Michael H., a 68-year-old man, was admitted for exploratory surgery of his abdomen. He is frail, and his attending physician describes him as “emotionally labile.” Marcy R. is a social worker at BFL General Hospital, who is assigned to the unit that Michael H has been admitted. After Michael’s surgery, Marcy R. was approached by Michael H.’s daughter, Ellen B. in which Ellen has told Marcy that her father’s physician had just informed her that the lab report from the exploratory surgery shows that her father has terminal cancer. Ellen said that she and the family are in shock and they have decided that they not want the hospital staff to tell her father about the terminal nature of his cancer once he recovers from anesthesia. In this essay, I will discuss the ethical dilemma of “to tell Michael or not to tell him he has terminal cancer. He has the right to confidentiality by not withholding information from him when he has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, informed consent, and self-determination.
One reason why teenagers should have the right to confidential medical treatments is so they can deal with their issues as effectively and timely as possible. When minors present their medical problems to their physicians, some of them can be emergencies. These situations can appear in a circumstance such as the patient waiting so long to get a doctor’s opinion of their illness or injury that they are at risk of serious consequences if it is not treated immediately. In some cases, there is no time to receive parental consent or approval, and medical procedure must happen as soon as possible. The patient is most desperate for attention in emergency situations and they should be able to consent to procedures so that they can be performed quickly. “Emergency physicians shall
There are many legal and ethical situations that healthcare providers will be faced with when providing medical treatment to either a child or an elderly adult. While there is often much discussion regarding the elderly and do not resuscitate orders, there are often times when the decisions for health care of a child may be overlooked. Some of the legal issues that may be faced by healthcare professionals are informed consent, confidentiality, reproductive services and child abuse. Patients have the right to decide what is done to their own bodies, but for children under eighteen, their parents decide for them. A major issue faced by healthcare professionals is parental refusal for treatment. Healthcare providers will be faced with many conflicting ethical and legal situations regarding refusal of a minor’s healthcare and treatment. These issues
For Cici published a note. Persuasive speech regarding Childhood Cancer Awareness Specific Purpose: To convince my audience that childhood cancer is much more common than widely believed, and that action must be taken to increase awareness and funding for research Introduction I.
The best possible resolution for this case would be to, first, to identify what Andrea would want to do for her end of life care. When her condition was deteriorating but before the cardiac arrest, the parents, social workers, nurses, and the physician should assess Andrea’s pain and suffering, asking her to express what she thinks she would want in the end. Harrison et al. (1997) supports this argument, claiming, “Parents and physicians should not exclude children and adolescents from decision making without persuasive reasons.” “Physicians should ensure that good decisions are made on behalf of their child patients” (as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000, p. 163). It was also argued that, children of primary-school age, like Andrea, can participate in medical decisions, indicating their