In 34 states, the District of Columbia and Guam all have laws that exempt parents or caretakers who fail to provide medical assistance to a child based upon religious beliefs, from being prosecuted for child neglect. Of these, six states include laws exempting parents from charges of child abuse, neglect, child injury and manslaughter, when religious beliefs conflict with medical care. In Idaho, legislation was passed in the 1970s to accommodate faith-healing groups. “The religious exemption is the only place in the child protective act that places the parent’s right before the child,” Mary Jo Beig, an attorney with the Idaho Attorney General’s office. Many of the religious denominations which practice faith healing often reject all medical treatment. Freedom of religion protects the ability of individuals to choose to replace medical care with prayers and oils; however, this should not extend to rejecting medical care for children. It protects individual’s rights of religion; however, this does not allow them to harm or allow harm to come to others. The medical ethics principle of autonomy allows for competent adults to reject medical care or choose alternatives to medical care based upon religious beliefs, but this does not extend to choices made for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics recognizes the issues involving laws exempting parents from being liable for harm coming to the child, caused by medical neglect. They believe it is
Currently in Fairfax County, Virginia access to child care, and being able to afford it are often crucial determinants in deciding if both parent will work. Most families have three options for securing child care. First, parent(s) can stay at home and care for their children. Which is an option that my family and I chose because child care is so expensive we could not afford it nor do we qualify for subsidized child care. Second, parents can pay for child care out of pocket.
In his article “Whose Body Is It, Anyway?”—appearing in the New Yorker in October 1994—Dr. Atul Gawande highlights the complexities of the doctor-patient relationship vis-à-vis patient autonomy and decision-making. Dr. Gawande explains that a respect for patient autonomy (i.e., allowing patients to choose between courses of treatment, therefore directly influencing their health outcome) is the “new normal” for medical practitioners. However, Gawande also contends that there are times when patients are better served by a voluntary relinquishment of that autonomy.
This report will be analysing the policies and legislations guiding the service user and the organisation caring for them. The importance of ethics in social care will also be explained .the case study will be discussed using the policies and legislations provided by the government.
Is our society’s strict adherence to religious freedoms costing the lives of innocent children? The Christian Science Church rely on the Establishment Clause and The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as granting themselves and their children exemption from medical intervention. But because of their insistence in relying solely on prayer for the healing their sick children, approximately one child a month in the U.S. is known to die from an illness that would have been curable had they had medical attention. 1 Religious liberties of parents might protect their beliefs, but it should not protect their conduct of denying the rights of a child to his or her life.
In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will
Over the course of time, there have been many debates dealing with religion and various laws. A concern that has arisen from these debates was the denial of health care for these religious families, and how it would impacts the children. There are many various opinions on this topic ranging from a strong belief in the healing powers of God to a strong stance that the refusal of health care results in child abuse. These self healing parents believe that medicine is not need to heal themselves or children. Instead, they believe that God is all they need to be healthy. However, should the religious belief of these parents give them the right to refuse health care for their family? While these parents should be allowed to express their
Currently, Idaho is one out of only six states that do not have any laws that hold parents accountable when children lose their lives due to their poor decision. A bill passed in 1972 made it so child injury is not punishable, when the parents have religious ideologies behind it (Naylor). Lately, there has been a push to make a change, as many see the danger in this exemption. Children must be protected by Idaho’s law, or more lives will be lost; we simply cannot stand for that. It is imperative that Idaho enacts legislation that prevents parents from having the ability to declare religious freedom to avoid punishment for manslaughter or neglect.
A patient is lying on a hospital bed hooked up to several machines regulating his bodily functions. The doctor has informed the family that the patient is brain dead. His spouse makes the decision to pull the plug but his mother argues against it. It is the mothers opinion that her son is still alive, and deserves to be treated like a person, even though his brain is no longer functioning. The spouse holds the opinion that any trace of her loved one has left with the death of his brain and only his body remains. Suddenly, both remember the patients wishes to not be sustained on life support, and they collectively decide to pull the plug. This example illustrates the central debate
Before a health care organization implements an EMR system, they should have a security system in place, which includes “access control” component. Access control within an EMR system is controlled by distinct user roles and access levels, the enforcement of strong login passwords, severe user verification/authorization and user inactivity locks. Health care of professionals regardless of their level, each have specific permissions for accessing data. Even though the organization have the right security system in place to prevent unauthorized users from access patient records, autonomous patients will expect to have access to his or her records with ease. Access their record will ensure that their information is correct and safe.
Nursing is an all encompassing profession in which practitioners are not only proficient in technical medical functionality, they also have the obligation to remain compassionate and respectful of patients and as such are expected to adhere to pre established codes of ethics. Of these ethics, autonomy is of extreme importance as it offers patients a sense of personal authority during a time where they may feel as if their lives, or at the very least their health, is no longer under their control. Autonomy in the context of nursing allocates the patient and often their family with the final word on the course of treatment. The concept of patient autonomy is a highly variable subject in all fields of health care. It is a universal concept that varies widely in its meaning and interpretation. Autonomy in its simplest form can be defined as a state of independence or self governing (Atkins, 2006). Patient autonomy can also be defined as the ability to make once own decisions, based on one’s sound judgment. It is defined by the American Nurses Association (ANA, 2011) as the "agreement to respect another 's right to self determine a course of action; support of independent decision making." This seemingly straight forward ethical concept is rife with difficulties when one considers potential disagreements that may arise even when informed consent is provided, particularly among children or vulnerable people. Relevant research and
The four principles of medical ethics include nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles were created by Beauchamp and James Childress because they felt these four were the building blocks of people’s morality. Nonmaleficence is to do no harm to others. Beneficence is to care or help others. Autonomy is to respect another’s wishes. These four principles relate to issues surrounding physician-assisted death in many ways. To begin, there are seven individual forms of PAD. They are the following; voluntary passive euthanasia, nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, involuntary passive euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician withholds treatment or surgery and the result is the patient’s death. An example of passive euthanasia is a cancer patient refusing treatment and the physician agrees with their decision, therefore the patient dies from the lack of intervention to treat their illness. Active euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician has a direct contact with the patient’s death due to the physician’s act of doing something to the patient in order for them to die. An example of active euthanasia is an injection of potassium chloride. Voluntary is when the patient is requesting assistance to die. Nonvoluntary is when the patient is not requesting assistance and their wishes are unknown
Am actual account of religious beliefs and shunning of medical treatment was first recorded in 2009 with a Northeast Philadelphia family. The family whose religion shunned traditional medicine allowed an infant son to pass away at a nearby hospital. In 2009 according to an article published in the Newsworks Philadelphia Newspaper written by
Professionals in every field are always confronted with some kind of ethical issues. It has however been noted that these ethical issues become high in magnitude and extent when public officials are involved. Due to the involvement of human life, an industry like healthcare holds ethics in highest regard. Even though these healthcare practitioners are highly trained to deal with issues of these kinds, their decisions can sometimes have a lasting impact on their professional and personal lives (Edwards 2009).
In the last three decades HIV/ AIDS has become the one of the most notorious and widely spread diseases in the modern world. Its discovery in the late seventies prompted worldwide concern. The one thing that has become the most bothersome thing about the HIV/ AIDS epidemic is prevention. Prevention or stopping the transmission of the diseases is hindered by factors such as: denial or non-acceptance by infected persons, unsafe sex, and non-disclosure by infected persons to their at risk sexual partner(s). According to Alghazo, Upton, and Cioe (2011):
Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.