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
Her opinion I also don’t think matters in rational selfishness. Her opinion is based on her emotion. Ms. Swenson wants to keep him alive and thinks her opinion matters because it will make her feel good that she is doing the right thing. However, the administrator at the hospital does have ground to stand on in the theory of rational selfishness. He clearly wants to save the hospital money, therefore a material gain. He states that the care Mr. Weston will need is a “terrible waste of resources and the hospital would pay through the nose” now that the Medicare is gone. The hospital would be losing $5000 per week for medical expenses caring for Mr. Weston. The family attorney has stated that Mr. Weston told him he doesn’t wish to be on life support if he can’t communicate. If we look at rational selfishness and where it is based on reason and intent more than consequences and emotion, then Mr. Weston should be allowed to ‘slip away’. The only reason I chose to let him slip away verses pulling the tubes and let him starve is because I feel that giving him a drug would be faster, therefore saving money because he would die sooner. Plus, starving is no way to let someone die, although that has nothing to do with rational
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
In the case of Jani McMath, her parents, family, the court, as well as the medical staff, are all faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to pull the plug. Who has her best interest in mind? How do we know? We would assume her family because they are the closest ones to her, but the truth is that McMath is incapable of making the decision for herself; therefore, whether her life is preserved or not is left in the hands of others. She could have wanted the plugged pulled; then again, she could have wanted her family to be strong and continue to fight for her life.
I believe that no child should be born for spare parts. It's almost like her parents are saying, “we only wanted you to save our golden child your opinions and feelings don’t actually matter to us.” It reminds me of when my dad went to the junkyard and bought a truck purely for parts for his other truck of the same year and brand. Anna isn’t an object built to be thrown away, she is a person who deserves to live her life without being treated as though she is only as good as an old truck from a junkyard. I would not consider doing the same if I were a parent in the same situation because I would never want to put such a small child through traumatic events like Anna went through, and I would never want to make my child grow up feeling like they are second best, less important, and only alive because we love the sick child more than we love them. I would not want my child to grow up feeling as though they are only alive because I needed to use them, not because I wanted and loved
The nurse could help simply with the explanation of how this could possibly save their child’s life so that she could see the world at an age that should could better appreciate it, and have her first real kiss, and get married. Nurses are better able to connect one on one with family unlike most doctors. Whereas, there are straighter to the point with the medical terms and how the surgery is going to go. Which is very important, but in a situations in the nature like this one, they forgot that they have to be a little more sympathetic and when they speak to the family of the patients they need to be more patient and understanding. According to the article “Working with Children in End-of-Life Decision Making” to uphold the child’s best interest while “dealing with these complex situations requires that health care providers have a sound understanding of ethics and ethical decision making”(Whitty-Rogers 6). This shows how nurses have to be able to effectively communicate with their patients and the patient’s family in a logic way but also ethical way. The logical communication would be the nurse giving the family all the facts, but by adding in the ethical way that gives them sympathy and shows the family that they care and are there if they need
Is it morally right, ethically right, and is it legal? Keeping a pregnant brain dead woman on life support
Doctors, such as those who worked Christi’s case are faced with multiple ethical issues they must deal with. Doctors are put in tough positions. They either perform the procedure to induce early labor, or risk losing both clients (Panicola 113). Doctors in these situations are not responsible for the death of a child, they did what was ethically right by following the wishes of the client, ignoring their personal beliefs.
Siding with the utilitarian point of view, I believe that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is ideal. In this situation, the child might be suffering greatly, but this one child is keeping a whole city from feeling the same sorrow. If the child were to be allowed the same
Despite of the increasing knowledge in healthcare and bioethics, care for critically ill children remains understudied in Canadian context. The prevailing theories in ethics of justice do not address adequately the complex moral problems involved in the care of vulnerable children. Patients often find themselves in a distress in facing a tragic dilemma with two unlikely options. In a tragic dilemma, patient must find meanings in the specific case and with the guidance of health care professionals and bioethics in making informed choices that reflect their values and beliefs. Using ethical concepts and theories, I will discuss the complex case of Mary Jane Peirce and formulate a comprehensive ethical decision using the Mcdonald’s Ethical
Is the selective non-treatment on handicapped newborns in a NICU unit moral? To start off, a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is an intensive care unit that specializes in the treatment of ill or premature newborns. This is also where a handicapped newborn would be placed. Just like any other argument, there are two sides. Some, like Raymond Duff and Robert Weir, argue that the selective non-treatment of a handicapped newborn is indeed moral. Of course, there are others, like Dr. C. Everett Koop and Paul Ramsey, that argue that selective non-treatment is not moral at all. By weighing both sides of the argument, one can decide for themselves if the selective non-treatment of a handicapped newborn is moral or not.
Baby suggs and Sethe are both the Mother figues in beloved and despite their suffering from slavery they both cared for their children greatly. Baby Suggs and Sethe connected through Motherhood to develop a close bond. They shared the love for their children a bond that all mothers can relate with. Sethe has four children that she loves very much but she could not deal with her past of sweet home. Sethe could not bare for that to happen to her children so she had to save them from the schoolteacher and slavery by trying to kill them. She kills one child whom is referred to as beloved for what is written on her tomb stone, but fails to kill howard buglar, and Denver. Sethe motherly natural instincts caused her
The parent’s decision to continue their child on life support is justified by the principles of autonomy, justice, and natural law theory. Of course someone that has full autonomy can decide what is best for his or her child. The mother of Emilio is a firm believer in treating anyone who still has breath. Her son may have had a life threatening disease, but that shouldn’t determine how his life should end. She wanted him to die naturally without physicians telling her when they were going to cut him off of all life-sustaining treatment. She shouldn’t have to fight for wanting her son to die naturally. Her autonomous decision of keeping her child on life support should be well respected by the hospital. It’s almost as if the hospitals are making
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
stability they feel when they have mom to count on "being there" all the time.
A mother is someone who can take the place of all others but no one can take the place of her. There are many different definitions you could use to describe your mother. My mother, Pam Krull, fits every one of those. Today I decided to pick the three that I thought was most important to me. I admire and aspire to be like my mother because of how supportive, how selfless, and how loving she is.