Reitha And Ken Lakeberg's Ethical Dilemmas

They performed the surgery in terms to “save” the developing child but putting Angela’s health at risk. The overall outcome is that both lives passed, and the surgery was the main reason why. Informed consent was also an issue in this case. Physicians believed that patients are obliged to treatment if the physicians believe that it is in their best interests. This is where informed consent comes to play. Even though autonomy doesn’t mean all patients will make good decisions, they have the right to refuse treatment. Patients are supposed to sign the informed consent form prior to any treatment/surgical procedures, to make sure they understand what they are going in for and the side effects that may come with treatment. But since the court and hospital are forcing her to surgery, would she need to sign the informed consent form, since she’s not willing? I believe that it should be her decision to undergo the surgery or refuse it. Munson also mentions that “If one holds that the fetus, at every developmental stage, is a part f the woman’s body and that she is free to do wit her body as she pleases, then there can be no conflict” (pg. 44). This implies with Angela because she is decided for the best interests for herself and it would be a violation of autonomy if her actions are regulated, whereas nonpregnant and men’s actions aren’t.

In August of 2000, a pregnant woman gave birth to conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary. They were given six months to live, however, if the doctors operated it would be possible to separate them and save Jodie's life but it would mean that Mary would die instantly. The parents argued that they wanted to leave both alive even if it meant killing both in the end, but the Hospital argued that it would be in their best interest to save Jodie and perform the operation. The hospital won the court case and operated successfully on them inevitably saving Jodie, but Mary died. The first side to the argument is that we should save as many people as possible, which in this case would mean sacrificing Mary so that Jodie might live instead of letting of letting

In America, abortion is an age old argument and most Americans have sided with being either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. But what happens when it comes down to aborting only one of the fetus twins or triplets? In David J. Ayers article, “Abortion’s Slippery Slope: The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy”, Ayers explains the rare medical procedure when a women wants to abort one of her fetus twins. This twin reduction is a way for mothers to use their constitutional right of choosing how many babies she wants. But what are the basic medical ethics when it comes to choosing which baby is aborted? The choice comes to the decision of the doctor and the mother, the baby’s location, sex, and health. Abortion in itself is a battle with a mother’s conscience. Having to choose, is a lifelong choice that can affect a mother in this conscience struggle.

In disagreement many people say that one person?s right to life always outweighs another person?s right to autonomy. However Thomson?s argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I?m going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let?s say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B?s survival depends on the use of twin A?s vital organ?s. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A?s body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has the right to twin A?s body. Therefore it is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B. In turn this would create the argument that abortion is not permissible even when the pregnancy is not voluntary.

When I was only 15 years old, a close friend of mine got pregnant. After spending a few days talking it over with her parents and now ex-boyfriend, she elected to have an abortion. At first I was totally appalled that she had reasoned to kill her newborn child. “How could someone find it so easy to take away another life?” I thought. Now, three years older and more mature me is finally able to process the reasoning behind not keeping the child.

It is hard to justify ending one life to save another. However it is important to evaluate the value of the donor life. It is also equally important to respect the wishes of the parents who speak on behalf of Teresa.

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.

Dear Leo, -I had a conversation with my case manager Ms., Mila from WSIB she told me that I needed to go to a specialty clinic to get a new diagnosis on my soft tissue injuries because you sent her such referral for me nonetheless I was never informed by you nor you discussed such referral with me in my first visit to the physiotherapy clinic where we met and you completed form 8 for WSIB conversely Dr. Daniels as a family physician with high ethical standards with his professional practice got very concerned that I might had internal bleeding when my co-worker took me after picking me from the stairs injured and upon my request he drove me to his walking clinic where my co-worker narrated to Dr. Daniels as a witness my accident Dr. Daniels

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

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

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

The court cases such as Baby M or Davis vs. Davis brought the question of who is the rightful owner of the child. In the case of Baby M, the surrogate mother did not want to give up the child after she was born. In Davis vs. Davis, a man refused to have his sperm implanted in the eggs, and so the question of the embryo being a person or property arose. In both instances, informed consent made the rightful parents. That is to say, whoever had the right and responsibility on the contract, was the rightful parent. This definition and regulation of ‘who is the parent’ was created while the ethical problems

| In this option Michelle’s parents take the approach that one healthy child is a better option than one very sick child and another that could potentially be injured trying to save the sick child’s life. The parents are basically going to be left with one healthy child and the grief involved with the impending death of Michelle.

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

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with