One of a parent 's worst fear is to live longer than their children. At what lengths should a parent go to try to save the life of their child dying from cancer? The film "My Sister 's Keeper" (2009) shows a mother willing to do almost anything to save her oldest daughter from dying to cancer and it 's effects on her marriage and the other children in the family. This film deals with many ethical issues found within the health system while also showing how class can give a family more options in their healthcare. We will examine how income and class can change a families healthcare options, then we will look at how Sara Fitzgerald (Cameron Diaz) and her doctor may have broken two ethical principles of medicine, nonmaleficence and beneficence, …show more content…
The doctor provided access to a treatment that people with less money would not be able to afford. Head and Cohen (2015) explain that there are "three major pathways by which socioeconomic status exerts an influence on health: access to quality health care, environmental exposure, and health behavior (p. 200). This is problematic because it is clearly putting a price tag on quality health care. There are treatments that will not be covered by insurance, and will have a significant price attached to them. This can lead to haves and have-nots in the health care system. Another aspect to look at is the fact that Sara and her family lived in Los Angeles. There are many treatments today that are not accessible to people that live in rural or poor cities across America. This creates problems because families will have to move to areas to meet their treatment needs, or they will have to forgo certain treatments because it is not feasible/affordable to send the patient to another city or to move the entire family. When a family can afford the treatment and has access to it, we still have to consider whether or not the treatment is …show more content…
Sara only thought about saving Kate 's life, she didn 't consider the safety and health of Anna during the treatments. While Sara may have been blinded by her "need" to save Kate, the providers should have considered Anna 's safety. The providers have to take into consideration nonmaleficence: "risks should be clearly outweighed by the benefits of treating a patient" (Scott & Iannarino, 2015, p. 298). While the treatments are beneficial to Kate, they are dangerous to Anna. This is especially true for a kidney transplant. A kidney transplant would have zero benefits to the donor and all risk. This clearly goes against nonmaleficence. This also bring up the principle of beneficence, where "healthcare providers should act in a patient 's best interest by working to restore the patient 's health or relieve the patient 's suffering" (Scott & Iannarino, 2015, p. 298). By not looking at the benefits of the donor, which is zero, they are putting the donor at risk for a possible benefit to one person. This can lead to a place where one life is considered more important than another. While there are many ethical problems that the providers face, they also have the task of communicating with surrogates for the care of their
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
As I was listening to Carol’s story, I realized that her story is one of many patients. Sure, she was lucky that her husband had advocated on her behalf when she was most vulnerable and she took over once she could but how many people could not? Juggling only two balls in the air becomes tricky once we name them “patient care” and “budget”. If we were to place Carol in an ideal hospital, would she have had the same expe...
Michael Moore uses pathos to arouse emotions and persuade the audience to agree with his perspective on America’s health care system. Throughout his film, he includes interviews of those who have lost their loves ones due to their problems with their insurance company in the United States. The most unforgettable and affective interview was the one with Dawnelle Keys. When her two-year-old daughter, Mychelle, developed a fever of over 104 degrees Fahrenheit, her healthcare company, Kaiser, claimed to support Mychelle only at its in-network hospital. Thus, after hours of delay, she got transported to Kaiser’s hospital, but unfortunately got into cardiac arrest and pronounced dead upon arrival. Thinking back to this incident, a great pain wails upon Dawnelle in her interview, and streams of tears roll down her cheeks. This heartbreaking scene makes the audience feel attached to and have great sympathy ...
When one initially chooses a career path, one rarely looks at all the negatives that may be associated with that choice. Most career paths have some negatives associated with the field, but few face the moral dilemmas associated with modern healthcare. Those who choose to be in the healthcare profession today are faced with moral and ethical dilemmas that would make King Solomon tear his hair out. In many cases, doctors, and sometimes nurses, are faced with life and death decisions without the benefit of knowing the patient’s, or the patient’s family’s, wishes. However, aside from those tragic times when a patient’s wishes are unknown, healthcare professionals must always put their own morals aside, and act
Medical ethics could be so many different thing mostly bad.There's so many stories about medical ethics this this story about this girl. At the age of 13 she was diagnosed with a rare and fated type of cancer.The survived and was cleaned that didn't have cancer. Then 10 years later she fought for her life again, she had sergey. After the Surgery there was no where no sign of the cancer. There years later she married and she became pregnant because of her health history she went to a clinic so they could watch her pregnancy.She had to go back to the clinic for having a lung tumor. She want to be in the best health, surgery was not an option. Her baby was too small to be born yet ,” meaning too premature.” (Thornton )She wanted to keep treating her cancer but, the doctors said that should wait until 28 weeks.She waited and the doctors she it was too dangerous and they wouldn’t help.So they want to cort.The court made it distion and at time is was very ill. The court order a surguy but the doctor said that if she goes into surgery she might not make it. She refused, but the doctors could not refused the courts orders. She was rolled into the surgery room. she made it into through the surgery, but two days later she died. She ...
Discrimination in health care is an ethical issue focused on age, gender, income, chronic illness, and ethnic disparities. Discrimination occurs when a group of individuals are highly favored above another, either consciously or not. In Carolyn Clancy’s speech, she addresses this issue of “It makes a difference in people’s lives when breast cancer is diagnosed early with timely mammography; when a patient suffering from a heart attack is given the correct lifesaving treatment in a timely fashion; when medications are correctly administered; and when doctors listen to their patients and their families, show them respect, and answer their questions” (Clancy, pp. 3). It is very interesting to see that knowing is able to cure treatment, but minorities especially blacks face breasts cancer in the worse manner due to not having the right resources for treatment. Whether the issues of direct or indirect discrimination occurs, these actions affect the lives of working Americans and their right to receive quality healthcare. In a the research article it mentioned that, healthcare providers’ assessment and treatment decisions are based off their feelings about patients, which is usually influenced by patients’ race or ethnicity. (Nelson, pp. 5) Relationships between race or ethnicity and treatment decisions are complex, they are usually influenced by
Gedge, E., & Waluchow, W. (2012). Readings in health care ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Today’s society protects against discrimination through laws, which have been passed to protect minorities. The persons in a minority can be defined as “a group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society” (The Free Dictionary). It is not ethical for any person to discriminate based on race or ethnicity in a medical situation, whether it takes place in the private settings of someone’s home or in a public hospital. Racial discrimination, in a medical setting, is not ethical on the grounds of legal statues, moral teachings, and social standings.
In the movie Brothers, I saw relational turbulence between the wife and husband. Relational turbulence is when people react to an interpersonal situation that ordinarily would not be significant; due to difficult times in the relationship, changes in behavior are more noticeable (Katz, 2015). One of the main components in relational uncertainty. One of the scenes where this is seen was during dinner, the husband got up and left the dinner table when the kids mentioned the uncle. When the wife went to check on him, she wanted to know about what happened to him while he was away, but the only thing he could focus on was if she slept with his brother. Even though he had asked his brother if he slept with the wife and he answered, the husband was
Sex, love, depression, guilt, trust, all are topics presented in this remarkably well written and performed drama. The Flick, a 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning drama by Annie Baker, serves to provide a social commentary which will leave the audience deep in thought well after the curtain closes. Emporia State Universities Production of this masterpiece was a masterpiece in itself, from the stunningly genuine portrayal of the characters of Avery and Rose, to the realism found within the set, every aspect of the production was superb.
Case #2 is a perfect example of a case that causes one to question which ethical principles are most important and to whom those principles should be applied. Case #2 involves Jane Trause who has had a history of drug use and is currently pregnant. Upon being admitted into labor and delivery, it quickly becomes evident to medical staff that the fetus is medically unstable and needs to be delivered immediately. However, it is determined by the medical staff that the baby will not survive a natural delivery and that the only way the baby will be born alive is by a C-section. Jane and her husband Doug adamantly refuse to allow a C-section and remind the staff that they have a right to refuse treatment. The residents of the hospital must decide if they can morally respect Jane’s autonomy and allow her to deliver naturally, while putting the fetus’ life in jeopardy or if they will override Jane’s wishes and perform the C-section without her permission to ensure a safe delivery.
The patient has to be completely free to make this decision, with absolutely no power whatsoeverin the insurance company's hand to force it. On the other hand, giving the opportunity to the patient to consider the expenses against the advantages and them make this decision about their own health care would be morally incorrect.. Indeed, only the patient can justify the morality in the situation which makes this hard decision for himself or herself, instead of some third party government or insurance company bureaucracy. Also, basic economic logic tells people that somebody should be making this decision.
1980. Warner Bros. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Music by Wendy Carlos and Rcachel Elkind. Cinematography by John Alcott. Editing by Ray Lovejoy. With Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd.
They did not follow through with what the parents ask because a Florida law states you can’t remove organs until the donor is dead. Although it would be sad to kill Baby Theresa to give her organs away, I would agree with her parents and physicians because she does not have long to live and will never be conscious so why not take the good organs and give them to another baby that could live. Ethicist disagreed with the parents and the physician because they said “it’s wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends”, they are saying by taking her organs you would be using her to help other people 's children. When you’re using somebody it means to violate their autonomy, Baby Theresa has no autonomy so there’s no way to violate it. People can’t always decide for themselves, when she could not decide for herself you need to think “what would be in her best interest?” either way Baby Theresa would die so there’s really not a best interest for her. Ethicists also said “it 's wrong to kill one person to save another”, if you killed Baby Theresa to