Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Patient autonomy vs beneficence
Importance of autonomy medical
Importance of autonomy medical
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Patient autonomy vs beneficence
Maternal-fetal issues spark complex and controversial debates in the field of biomedical ethics (Farber-Post, 1996). The conflicts arise when medical professionals try to determine to whom their ethical obligations are owed. Many ethicists argue that autonomy is precedential and, therefore, the duty of the medical staff is to the pregnant woman because it is her body, and she has a right to make decisions regarding her healthcare. Others argue that equally important ethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, and avoiding killing override the principle of autonomy, and therefore, these principles that govern actions towards the fetus, in particular the fetus’ right to life, demand that medical professionals override the mothers’ desires at times. 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. Se... ... middle of paper ... ...the consequences of their actions. If the physician in Jane’s case feels that it is necessary, he/she is allowed to seek court intervention and request the right to perform a C-section in order to save the baby. However, it is clear in Case #2 there is an emergency and therefore, there is not any time to seek court intervention. There are currently no laws in effect that penalize physicians that fail to seek court intervention (Deshpande & Oxford, 2012). However, in some cases in which a physician performs a C-section on a woman who previously refused the surgery, there may be legal ramifications. The woman may choose to press charges or seek legal action resulting in a case against the physician. As a patient, Jane has a right to make an autonomous decision regarding her healthcare and as a medical professional, the physician has a duty to respect Jane’s autonomy.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Meyers, Christopher, & Woods, Robert D. (1996). An obligation to provide abortion services: what happens when physicians refuse? Journal of Medical
One of the most controversial and highly debatable subjects in the minds of the American public today is the topic of abortion. While abortion is seen as murder to some, others look upon it as an extremely safe procedure, offering numerous benefits to the recipient, predominantly being the right to choose. The argument has long been increasingly prevalent in the American political scene for decades, and is now being brought into new light as medical practices advance and technical flaws are effectively worked out. What cannot be altered, however, is the reality that what is being disposed of is in fact, a developing human life. It is this fact that the pro-life argument is based upon. The abortion debate not only revolves around the overall legality of the procedure, but also the conditions taking place that would condone such an operation.
A pregnant women diagnosed with cancer is a very rare case in medicine. Yet, this case still prevents itself in the field of medicine. Approximately, 1 in 1000 pregnant women are affected by cancer (“Cancer During Pregnancy”). Conflicts that pin maternal health versus fetal health have come to an interesting point in our society. The pregnant woman legally has the right to accept treatment that will harm the unborn child. Yet, it becomes a moral issue whether she owes it to her unborn child to refuse treatment in order to avoid fetal harm and deliver a healthy child. For the sake of argument, this paper will predominantly deal with pregnant cancer patients that if they refused chemotherapy may die, but if they received chemotherapy in the hopes of curing or slowing the cancer, their unborn child would be born healthy. This document will argue that the woman has the right to accept and should accept chemotherapy
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
As one knows, some unwanted pregnancies could often be harmful and distressing for a woman. Women should have the right over their body to choose to sustain the fetus or not. In the past decades, women did not have their freedom of abortion in many countries of the world. There have always been controversies going on about abortion. Each individual has dissimilar views on the legality of abortion. Some people are against abortion for personal religious purposes and beliefs. For those who don’t believe in abortion, it is because they see it as killing a fetus, which is a human being. Others support abortion because they believe in women’s rights. Laws of abortion vary in each country, and abortion is not legal all over the world. It is illegal under any conditions but only permitted to save woman’s life if in countries such as Brazil, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and Ireland. However, abortion is legal without any restrictions in countries like Canada, Albania, and Italy. It the past decades Abortion was considered as criminal act in Canada. “If an abortion was carried out without such approval, the woman was liable for imprisonment for 2 years, an...
Abortion is the process of removing the unwanted contents of conception, which will develop into a human being, from a mother’s body. It has been a controversial topic for years and undoubtedly will continue as one until the end of time, with valid arguments being made from members on both sides of the isle. Many of the argument and issues pointed out are ethical, scientific, and moral in nature. When do these contents of conception actually become a person? Should abortion remain legal? If made illegal will women’s health suffer as back alley abortions are performed? These are some of the many questions that are asked when the topic of abortion is discussed. For the time being abortions are legal since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized it. This law is in direct opposition of many health care workers and nurses’ personal moral and ethical beliefs, therefore, we as nurses must examine our own surrounding and beliefs while at the same time being aware that proper care must be provided to all patients. In situations where moral obligations are tested, the professional nurse will remain free of stereotyping or segregating and will either dismiss themselves from care of these patients or will be nonjudgmental and provide the best possible care.
Abortion’s legalization through Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade, has allowed for one in three pregnancies to end in abortion. This means that 1.5 million abortions are performed in the United States each year (Flanders 3). It ranks among the most complex and controversial issues, arousing heated legal, political, and ethical debates. The modern debate over abortion is a conflict of competing moral ideas and of fundamental human rights: to life, to privacy, to control over one's own body. Trying to come to a compromise has proven that it one cannot please all of the people on each side of the debate.
Today, abortion has become one of the greatest controversies throughout the world. The debate on whether or not abortion should become a legal option continues to dismember not only Americans, but citizens of other countries. There are people who believe abortion is a women’s civil right, and those who consider it as an immoral act. There are those who believe personhood begins at birth, and those who believe personhood begins from the moment of conception. Many contradictory statements lead to the separation of two groups: pro-choice and pro-life. While a pro-choice supports a women’s “right to privacy”, pro-life supporters are against such an action considering it murder, but why force a female to go through such a dramatic change because of a pregnancy?
Abortion once only discussed in the privacy of your own homes, behind closed doors or in secrecy has been brought to the forefront and has become an open forum for government officials, pro-life and pro-choice organizations. The topic of abortion in America has become very high strung among various religious groups and pro-life organizations protesting against abortion, questioning the fourteenth amendment and the idea of personhood. The fourteenth amendment states that "...neither the U.S. nor any state shall deny a citizen life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness..." Yet, the most controversial issue of the abortion debate is whether or not the fetus is seen as a person. If the fetus is seen as a “person/citizen” then they are entitled to individual inalienable rights given to us and bound by the Constitution. Furthermore, if the court recognizes that the fetus is in fact a person/citizen then their inalienable constitutional rights have to be addressed. When deciphering between the legality abortion and the rights of the fetal citizen, what is the responsibility of the physicians and clinics to deter abortions; and should physicians be required to provide 4-D ultrasounds to their patients electing voluntary abortions? The answer to these questions are simple, abortion clinics and physicians need to be required to provide 4-D ultrasounds to patients electing voluntary termination to deter abortions. In this paper, I will define personhood, the fourteenth amendment and it relationship to abortion, as well as, the requirements of clinics and physicians offering abortion. Hopefully, by the end of this paper you will understand what personhood is and what it means personally to me, as well as understand the new age arm’s reach ...
Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne, and Mappes, D. DeGrazia. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
One of the main controversies within this topic is the question of fetal person hood by the law. Fetuses hardly have any legal rights since they are not considered to be children. Abortion rights advocates say that these laws may prevent women from receiving pre-natal treatment. They think that the women will be scared of getting caught. A spoke person for the National Abortion and Reproduction Rights Action League says, "Women do have a responsibility, to have a healthy outcome if they've chosen to carry to term." The executive director of the national anti-abortion group Alliance argues, "Why is it that, if a child is wanted, it is a patient, and if not, it's OK to get rid of it?" (Zeller 1998)
The article first discusses the recent and ongoing case of Kimberly Turbin, an American mother who is suing the obstetrician that delivered her baby for assault and battery. During Turbin’s delivery, the obstetrician disregarded her repeated denial to have an episiotomy performed—and performed the procedure anyway. The article goes on to discuss how episiotomies are routinely performed despite substantial, growing, and increasingly available evidence that they are rarely necessary and rarely beneficial. This paper will explore violations in the case of Kimberly Turbin and the practice of routine episiotomies based on articles included in the American Association of Medical Assistants’ Code of Ethics.
Everyday, innocent, harmless fetuses that could soon be laughing children are being cruelly destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the fetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece-by-piece from the uterus by suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another form consists of bringing the fetus feet first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain tissue. The remains of the fetus or embryo, as the case may be, are put into plastic buckets and then sent to a dumpster where these precious bones and limbs are disposed. However, how and when an abortion takes place are of little significance to pro- abortionists and other defenders of abortion. Even former abortion practitioners have a new view on abortion. These changes of heart were caused by psychological, religious and scientific reasons. One doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, performed 60,000 abortions and supervised 10,000. Scientific evidence and the use of an ultrasound convinced him he was promoting and participating what he now calls “the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States.” Other doctors refuse to perform legal abortions, saying they should save lives rather than destroy them.
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.