Child On Life Support Ethics

(Pozzuolo, Lassoff, & Valentine, 2005). The decision to grant the family the right to remove the feeding tube was a favorable decision because it left the final decision to the family’s discretion. The court could have refrained from requesting the family to provide clear and convincing evidence for this case. As the legal guardian of the family member, it should be solely left up to the family the precautions that will need to be taken in regards to the incompetent family member. The parents should have been able to make the decision for their daughter without any higher powers getting involved. Because Cruzan was physically incompetent to consent, the next person who would be empowered to consent would be her parents. Cruzan’s parents as next of kin were her Guardian. (Pozgar, G., 2016), According to the law they were invested with the power and charged with the duty of taking care of their daughter first by protecting her rights to die in dignity (p. 406). Family members should be able to make the necessary decisions for their family members directives without the courts getting involve. I am sure the decision Cruzan’s family had to make was not an easy one. The time spent on court battles made an already tragic situation worse. That time should have been spent with family members saying their final goodbyes.

One’s body and life are one’s own to dispose as one sees fit. Everyone is entitled to the right to die concept, in that they can decline or accept life-sustaining treatments. However, this was a dispute in the case of Terri Schiavo where all three branches of government were involved to decide on whether they should keep her on life-prolonging measures or discontinue after she was left in a comatose state. After no sign of improvement for over two months, her diagnosis was changed to a persistent vegetative state leaving her life decisions in the hands of her husband, Michael. Michael argued that his wife would not have wanted the prolonged life support and even went as far as starting a petition to remove her feeding tube, which her parents

The nurses in this small community hospital in no way upheld the Code of Ethics for nursing at this point of time in the care of the infant in this case. Primary responsibility and code is to give respect and good quality care to every patient. When the nurse turned off the monitor on this infant, they denied him the right to quality care. The nurse took away this infant’s worth by deciding to not treat him according to the orders and policies of the doctors and the hospital. Although the nurse could have turned the monitors off because it was disturbing one of her patients, and her job is to respect the primary interests of her patients. As an infant in the hospital at that time, he was a patient as well, even if not assigned to whichever particular nurse it was

The ethical dilemma, in this case, is that Nancy Cruzan was in a vegetative state in a Missouri hospital and that the parent wanted to withhold hydration and nutrition from their daughter. There was no documentation that Nancy Cozen wanted this kind of action to take place if she was ever in a vegetative state. The hospital would not go forth with withholding the hydration and nutrition because of the lack of documentation. The hospital dilemma was that they believe that the individual in a vegetative state has a constitutional right to choose if they want to be withheld from hydration and nutrition. There had to have already been a living will or well-documented evidence of the patient wishes.

I believe that Mrs. Patricia Dubreuil has every right to decline her consent to a blood transfusion if it is against her religious belief. I understand that we as people know or feel one way about things in live, but that doesn’t mean that we know what is best for another person. I understand that the husband or brothers may not agree with her decision, but the decision should have never been their decision to make because Mrs. Dubreuil was well competent and informed about the decision she was making. A patient that suffering from an emergency has the right to refuse consent if they not are suffering for any mental issues. I agree with Judge Barkett, that by Mrs. Patricia refusing treatment doesn’t mean she is leaving her kids abandoned. The

In this essay, I will argue for the implementation of the death penalty. I will establish a clear-cut profile for a criminal to be eligible for death row. I will put forth arguments for and against the death penalty as supported by various groups and try to defend my position. I shall also try to criticize the case against the death penalty with individual arguments. Finally, I will demonstrate that no alternative to capital punishment can be reached and try to convince you for its fairness. Despite ethical and moral concerns, the issue of capital punishment must not be dismissed without serious consideration and scrutiny.

The decision to limit or withdraw life sustaining therapy is made by medical staff in consultation with patients or surrogates. Patient’s families or surrogates often possess intimate knowledge of a patient’s personal values. They believe that this knowledge empowers them, and them alone to dictate what should happen to their relative at end-of-life in ICU. Occasionally they use this belief to persist in requesting aggressive care despite being advised by

Without straddling the fence and having to choose, I support the mother’s decision to withdraw all care for the young child. One reason why I support the mother’s decision to withdraw all care, because the child is practically dead since the machines are caring out majority of the body functions for the child. At this point it is in the best interest for everyone to end all suffering and troubles. In my eyes they are very much standing by the side of their dead child already. Emotionally speaking watching a lifeless child on the daily basis is far more stressful to someone emotions .Visiting their child at the hospital is equivalent to visiting their child at a cemetery because their child is not responsive. From an economic standpoint allowing

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

The people involved should know all of the options before they make a decision. The patient’s condition should be taken into account. Each patient has a different disease or illness, severity, symptoms, and medical conditions. For example, section 166.049 of Texas’s Advance Directives Act doesn’t allow life support to be removed or refused if the patient is pregnant. In that case, both the baby and the mother would die if the mother was taken off of life support, but even then the ethics of that situation can differ from person to person and the laws could differ depending on the state’s abortion laws. Also, while money should not be the deciding factor, it should be taken into account. Back when Jahi McMath was on life support in 2013, the cost of the treatment in the intensive care unit was $2,000 to $4,000 a day at the very

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

The existing North American legal norms recognize parents as children’s guardians and therefore the legitimate decision-maker (Carnevale, 2007). However, parental authority is not absolute as the government has the right to intervene in the cases of neglect or abuse (Carnevale, 2007). The ministry should have to assess the competency of the parents to act as the primary decision-maker before making an action. The legal guardian must then decide for the best interest of the child. On one hand, full resuscitation measures could be maintained to ensure Mary Jane’s survival and try to reduce permanent injury as much as possible. On the other hand, therapy could be partially or fully limited. The parents can decide to limit any form of treatment or to discontinue all current treatment on the basis that it is inflicting harm without a reasonable prospect of benefit. Thus, the parents face a dilemma: to continue all resuscitating treatment and hope for Mary Jane’s best possible recovery or withdraw life support and allow her to die.

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

Katie, you made some very good points in you discussion and I agree with your views. Truth-be-told when I read the passage about Marie it angered me at how the doctor dismissed her pain as being exaggerated and provided her with only a placebo. As parent I cant even being to process the emotions that one must go through when facing a situation of this magnitude. Just brainstorming for my initial post I changed my mind several times. My opening thought was no, but as I read the story of Marie I changed my mind. So you are right, this is a difficult topic to tackle. Even after seeing it from both prospective I have to side with you that if the child is competent then they should have a voice in their medical treatment decision. For example, my

When a tragedy strikes, the family is already pushed to make difficult decisions about their injured loved one. Possible decisions may include, donating viable organs, donating the body to science, and in the worst case scenario, funeral details. But what if the tragedy involves a pregnant brain dead mother? The family should have the choice of keeping the mother on life support until the baby is developed enough for a cesarean section can be performed, or to take the mother off of life support to end the suffering. Leaving the choice to the family would make the situation possibly less painful. If the hospital takes the mother off life support against the family’s wishes, that choice by the hospital would be considered very unethical.