Her doctor, Dr. Sottiurai had ordered her to have bilateral arteriograms to see what could be the cause of the poor circulation. The hospital that Dr. Sottiurai was located were unable to perform the procedure, so she was transferred to another hospital under another doctor by the name of Dr. Lang who performed the procedure on the incorrect location, the procedure was performed on the thigh instead of the elbows. The procedure seemed to go well, however shortly after her procedure her condition started to deteriorate and ultimately she suffered from a stroke 11 days after and passed away. Her children filed a lawsuit claiming that the incorrect procedure was performed and that the patient had not consented to
However, donation involves asking ethical questions because the treatment affects not only the people in need of transplants but also the individuals who donate. The main reason why people may consider donating organs is because of the very great benefit that this can bring to others. On the other hand, some find the idea of organ donation too invasive. Those people believe that it is wrong to take organs from people. The decision to or not to donate is a moral decision.
I have to agree, that if organ donations did become legal, it would change the underlying meaning of organ donations, it wouldn’t be because you truly want to help people. But even if you don’t have a choice, you would still be saving someone’s life, which is heroic. We should have compassion for people, because we never know if that could be us one
Most people would say that it is the friar simply because he let them get married in the first place when he should not have. It only caused more problems for these lovers. Basically someone is responsible for these lovers deaths. The friar is to blame because he let them get married and it caused a lot of problems for them. He also is to blame because he didn’t get the message delivered to Romeo in time so when he arrived at the tomb of Juliet she awake yet so he killed himself and then she saw that he was dead so she killed herself.
The Curse of Knowledge plays a big role in misunderstood communication between healthcare staff/physicians and their patients/family members (stakeholders), such as the case of the physician’s communication with Jesica’s family after it was determined that irreversible brain damage had occurred (Burns, Bradley, & Weiner, 2011). The Curse of Knowledge occurs when a communicator (sender of information - physician, in this case) begins to communicate a piece of knowledge to a listener (receiver of information - Jesica’s family in this case) that has no knowledge or understanding of what is being communicated. Medical terminology and explanations come from healthcare staff, such as physicians, nurses, and medical specialists who have been educated
The idea of duty should also be considered. If a doctor is to do his moral duty, this would be to cure or alleviate pain, and not assist on killing, as that would disregard the doctor-patient relationship and the hippocratic oath they swore to uphold. With today’s growing technology and medical innovation, people suggest that a cure may become available at any time and miracles can happen, and euthanasia would prevent those from happening. With doctors doing everything they can to keep people alive, patients are often left living under machines controlling every organ of their body, even when they’re brain dead. That only because the family members won’t let go and keep on holding on to the little shred of hope that a miracle might
Should kids have a voice? This is a question that people all over the world with different beliefs ask themselves constantly, whether it’s for kids to be allowed to have a voice when it comes to their educational system or letting them say their opinion on medical decisions for them. Traditionally, it is seen as irresponsible to let your kids select what they consider is best for themselves, but what if just for once, we gave them a chance to speak up. Have either your mom or your dad ever told you something along the lines of, “I’m the parent so therefore everything I say is correct?” Well, when they state something like this, they are clearly giving a disjunctive argument. They shouldn’t assume that their choice is right and the rest choices are wrong.
Parents are given the option now for certain vaccines as of whether or not they want their kid to receive it. Reasons why some parents say no to vaccines is their religion, personal beliefs, or the parents feel the vaccine is unnecessary. Parents tend the think the chemicals within the vaccines are extremely
Some believe that the virus that is being vaccinated against is alive in the vaccines, while others just have personal beliefs. Parents will let their unvaccinated child be treated for a brain infection, that was caused by a preventable disease, with weeks of IV antibiotics, yet still say no to vaccinations. If a parent did not provide their child with the right medical attention for a broken bone, child protective services would most likely apprehend the child and the parent could be charged with negligence. Many people have double standards when it comes to vaccinations and medical treatment. There is a very common misconception that vaccinations are optional.
When you hear the word death or you hear that someone has died today in the news or on the television I know a lot of people think “Man, I feel sorry for the family that they have to go through that.” or they thank god that it was not them or their family members.” Sadly though people try to push away death and push away the fact that everyone dies at one point in time. This is even truer when they witness their own family member in the hospital with a critical condition that the doctors cannot fix even with modern medicines on the doctor’s side. Another such time would be when a person’s family member is diagnosed with an incurable sickness that is fatal. What would you do in that moment when “death is knocking on their door” or they are about to die? Some people may answer this question by saying keep them alive by using artificial means.
According to Munson (2014), through genetic screening or testing, birth of infants with debilitating or crippling defects can be avoided. Also through testing, disease and illness could be eradicated because the gene that causes the disease or illness would not be passed on to the next generation. This is consider eugenics. Some in the medical field have a negative feeling towards this, as if to be playing God. There are others in the medical field on the extreme end feel that laws should be developed that couples with known genes that cause genetic disorders must not have children or if they do selection of embryos are done (Munson, 2014).
Patricks ' illness was created to gain attention for the mother, making her son deathly ill in the process. Assistant Prosecutor Sheila Whirley told jurors: “She manufactured illnesses. People don’t want to believe that a mother would do this because mothers are supposed to plant the seeds of love that grow for a lifetime.” Kinsella admitted to police that she “accidentally” gave her son the wrong medication “on occasion.” Doctors disputed that because of the amount of medication and types of drugs that were found in Patrick 's system showed she had intentionally poisoned her
Even if a mother’s life is at risk a pro-life advocate wouldn’t see it necessary for the abortion procedure. Numerous physicians have stated that it’s rare for abortion to be necessary to save a mother 's life and even if it were it is wrong to intentionally kill a innocent person to save another. For many pro-choice advocates the life and health of the mother are frequently used as reasons to keep abortion legal. If the mother has a medical issue which can complicate the pregnancy then it is medically necessary to have an abortion. In some cases where the mother happens to be a teen girl her body isn’t ready yet for childbirth.
Moreover, health care costs for terminally ill patients, including nursing homes, prescription drugs, and home health care deserves consideration. Some families can not afford to drop everything in order to take on the full time responsibility of their sick loved one. This adds financial stress to the family and can lead to the desire to resolve the issue by forcing the idea of euthanasia on to the loved one. According to Time.com, one in every four Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life. The result of this is often an overwhelming debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the care of a single patient costing approximately $39,000 exceeding the financial assets for many households.
But there is also the factor of elderly euthanasia which is the equivalent to voluntary physician assisted suicide. Social workers have to be prepared for questions from their clients on this option regardless of their feelings. I believe that it is hard to tell a client in the end-of-life stages to choose euthanasia or not. And it is important for all social workers to put any bias towards the situation to the side and empower their client to make their decision based on their own beliefs solely. This requires the ability to not put one’s own religious beliefs into their practice, avoid discriminating against the client’s reasons for choosing or not choosing this option based on their religious beliefs, or using their opinion that their client should or