The Effects Of Developmental Treatment On Patients

Although the FDA prolongs this process for safety concerns, I personally feel that they should be able to expedite their approval. The reason for expedition is because more and more people are being diagnosed with multiple health issues. Some people are more desperate then others and feel they can benefit from the drug as it is. Therefore, if a person wants to take a drug that has not been approved yet, then they should be able to

Another issue involving the Orphan Drug Act that has caused great conflict and controversy is the market exclusivity it provides as an incentive. In 1989 Amgen’s drug erythropoietin was approved by the FDA to treat anemia. Amgen was given exclusive marketing rights for seven years and erythropoietin became one of the most successful drugs in history. In these types of instances, the issue is that these companies have essentially created a monopoly where they have complete control. [6][7] Since there is no competition, companies have the opportunity to drive up the prices forcing people to be left with the ultimatum of either paying high out of pocket prices or leaving their condition untreated. The reduction in competition also severely limits the access to treatments for patients with rare diseases. [6]

Misconception with equipoise will make the barrier between therapeutic and research null. Its goal in producing reliable and generalizable knowledge is coiled in with ethical difficulty. That’s why on an ethical standpoint, benefiting a collective group needs to be weighed with the rights of the participant patients in the clinical research. However, the goal of equipoise is beneficial since its main priority is extracting epistemic information from the randomized clinical trials. The useful information is needed since equipoise follows the principle of having “a state of genuine uncertainty.” This affects both theoretical and clinical. So, trials that are redundant can be marked out by taking equipoise into account since the trials have already been run where there is already certainty of the outcome. So, to detail what equipoise allows underneath the principle of “non-exploitation” is that there will be no exploitation of participants or patients with a needless trial that holds no useful outcome. Equipoise becomes a necessary condition in order for a trial to become ethical since trials must be reviewed to be deemed of value. But, there’s an underlying factor that equipoise’s uncertainty trials do not bring about and that is the health of the patients. Participant patients will undergo trials of uncertainty so there is a possibility that the patient may be harmed during the process. If the trial proceeds, then the health of the patients will be even more at risk, disregarded and exploited in order to grasp epistemic information. The moral principles between medical therapy and those that guide clinical research is different. Though, equipoise is valuable in a collective sense – it is exploitative of participant patients by failing to consider the balance with the subject and societal

A regulation exists to protect a patient’s safety – on its own it doesn’t mean that there is scientific evidence that a treatment is effective.

Do I have the right to refuse treatment (NHS, 2011) states that, if you hold enough mental capacity and are able to make an informed, sound decision to refuse treatment, your decision should be respected, even if the decision resulted in death.

2. generally right to decide treatment: Patients generally have the right to decide their treatment however; others measures of treatment should be discussed with the patients. Patients should be competent when deciding to refuse treatment and understand what their options are, however; this should not include physician assisted suicide. Patients do not have to suffer or be in pain, there are many medical options to help the patient through palliative care that will keep them comfortable.

In order to respond this question, we must first review the history of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) and Early Childhood Education (ECE). Although ECE has been around since the creation of kindergarten in the 1800’s, the decade of the 1980’s was an important period for ECE. “By the 1980’s, meta-analysis of the well-designed US projects offered compelling evidence on the positive outcomes of [early childhood education and intervention]” (Woodhead, 2007). Therefore, there was much pressure to improve the state of education, including ECE. “The decade of the 1980’s saw numerous calls for widespread school reform, with changes recommended in teacher education, graduation requirements, school structure, and accountability measures” (S. Bredekamp, R.A. Knuth, L.G. Kunesh, and D.D. Shulman, 1992). At this time, there was an increasing concern about the quality of early childhood education for the influx number of families that needed it. This led the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) to “begin planning a national voluntary accreditation system for early childhood programs”(NAEYC, 2014). With this planning came a need for a more specific description with regards to accreditation guidelines. Therefore, NAEYC issued a formal statement defining DAP.

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.

Rationale: Promotes understanding of the disease condition and reduces feelings of guilt and fear. Understanding treatments promotes informed decision making and keeps expectations realistic.

The author believes that biomedical research is the way of better understanding medicine and without randomized clinical trials the field of medicine will have insufficient information. He argues that randomized clinical trials are the most scientifically sound and ethically correct means of evaluating new therapies. The belief of a physician being unethical when running randomized clinical trials is rejected by this article because previous trials on patients can have a better outcome on future patients. This article stresses that randomized clinical trials must be carefully designed that has an intended purpose of gathering data to improve the wellbeing of patients. If the patient is to endure a clinical trial he/she must be properly informed of the risks of the trial and the health of the patient should be high priority. Overall this article explains the importance of randomized clinical trials and debunks the idea of randomized clinical trials as being unethical. This article uses a utilitarian point of view and gives reasons why these trials can be in the best interests for both the patient and society.

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

The “Right to die” act should be an option. If you don’t want to fight your disease or you have fought your disease for a long time “The right to die act” should be available. Paragraph four lines ten-twelve claims that “people should have the option to possess the choice to fight a noble fight or die a noble death”. Assuming that you don’t want to be bound to a hospital bed and having the ability to barely do nothing you should have “The right to die act”. Paragraph two line eight states that “Disease takes away so many choices and puts many people at the mercy of doctors and nurses.”. The terminally ill want to make their final choice before staying in a hospital bed for the rest of their life. In the case that you have no one to care for you then you should have “The right to die act.” available to you. Paragraph five lines one-three reveals to us that not all people don’t have people don’t have anyone to help them with their disease. There are a lot of people that are lonely and sick at the same time. The “right to die act” is something that should be a choice.

A character that went by the name C, a 50 year old women that was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, was given her right to die after explaining that she was scared of losing her life style. Her decision was completely selfish; she was scared of growing old and becoming ill. Doctors have even said that she had a good chance of surviving her illness; yet she decided to end her own life anyway. It is this story that brings up the question of why can’t people who have no hope have a right as well. This right was given to a women with a chance and yet we still withhold it from people that can benefit from

As health care consumers, everyone has certain rights; this is often referred to as a Patient’s Bill of Rights. While there is not a universal Patient’s Bill of Rights, it typically addresses an individual’s right to information concerning their condition and treatment options, and autonomy over their medical treatment decisions. This means that individuals have the right to choose what medical treatments they may or may not want to receive. You have the right to refuse treatment that has been recommended by your treating physician, as long as you understand the nature and consequences of the health care decision, even if it might prolong your life (Patients, 2016.)

Autonomy: patient has right to decide what they want to do. A lot of state laws do not ban selling the syringes and needles without prescription, so most of the time pharmacists get to decide if they want to sell these products or not, however, this action greatly violates the principle of autonomy. Drug addicts have the rights to make their own choice in terms of living on drug free versus drug addictive lives, moreover, while addicts try to obtain sterile syringes and needles, it illustrates