Voiceless Victims Every parent dreams of walks in the park on a perfect sunny day with their child, hearing their first words, taking their first steps, and watching them grow up and live to their full potential. No parent has ever wanted to sit in a dark hospital, clinging onto their baby’s tiny cold hand, and have the only hope they can hold onto taken away from them in a flash. A few weeks ago, I heard a story that caught my attention about a young two-year-old boy who was forcibly taken off life support against his parents’ wishes. After extensive research, it has become evident that this is not the first time this has happened. This has aroused my curiosity as to why a court would deny someone the right of life support if there was still a possibility of survival. As of September 2017, the High Court of the UK ruled that a judge’s approval is no longer needed before removing somebody from life support. In regards to this decision, hospitals should not remove someone from the aid of life support when the family disagrees without first taking it to court, and review to see if there are any possibilities of hope. In April of this year, …show more content…
In a situation like this, any parent would defend their child in a blink of an eye. This is what the parents of Alfie, Charlie, and Israel simply did; they defended their child. There is not the right kind of respect in our court systems today for a family who face the possibility of losing a child. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich tweeted, “The British government’s decision to allow two critically ill babies [Alfie and Charlie] to die in two years is a natural reflection of the culture of death and the steady increase in totalitarian tendencies among western governments”(Osborne). He recognizes that the deaths of these children were all outcomes in the removal of life support resulted from a court and doctor’s
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
The Texas state law states that “A pregnant woman may life support may not be withheld or taken off of life support”. There has been an ongoing debate as to whose autonomy should be respected.
...s driven by non-maleficence, or the intent to “do no harm”. They know that withholding treatment for religious beliefs will potentially be fatal to both. While Maria is acting out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff is acting out of loyalty to the patient’s well being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party were acting on behalf of that child. In conclusion, providers in this case must pursue every option in delivering life saving treatment for this child. This may involve legal action. If it were just Maria providers may attempt to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse suggested treatment. Since her decision affects the life of the baby providers are called upon to save that child .
This case was taken into the British court system where, after a long trial, a judge upheld the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate. The reasoning was that the judge felt he could not order the doctors to perform actions that would cause increased suffering for the child. After considering the doctrines of the sanctity of life and the...
‘Is it ethical to have a child for the purpose of saving another child’s life?’
However, the framework in practice is very complex, and has various inconsistencies, such as the legality of refusing treatment, the sovereignty of a living will and the issue of prosecuting those who assist someone to end their lives. There is evidence that shows doctors using palliative sedation as a means to facilitate death in patients that are in extreme pain and the use of limiting or even stopping treatment at the patient’s request is not uncommon. The difficulties of putting the law into practice make it extremely difficult for courts, legislators and doctors to reach clear decisions on individual cases. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the legal framework need to be addressed, as with these present the argument against legalising the right to die is weakened. Legalising assisted dying would simplify the framework and ensure that set barriers and safeguards could be created in order to protect the patient and his/her
Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.
The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) was implemented to allow patients to state “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNS), or to assign a surrogate decision maker in the event the individual is unable to make the decision. Closed cardiac massage was introduced in 1960 and still the health care provider operated in fear on who to actively resuscitate and they would sluggishly respond on patients who may not benefit based on extent of illness (Ball, 2009). The care providers operated in fear of litigation depending on the family’s response but was fairly relieved by introduction of the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA).
Machuca and Innocent Voices showed repression of free speech and heavy political influence. Everyday life in Latin America during political crisis was grim, there were food shortages and rationings as seen in Machuca. If the family was not financially stable, it would have been difficult to acquire the goods needed to survive. Many were fearful of being captured by the army for looking a certain way or doing anything that would be considered rebellious and in any way against the regime. The priest in Innocent Voices feared for Chava’s safety because he was playing a rebellious, prohibited song on his portable radio. He then turned on the intercoms and played it himself, so Chava would not be taken by the army. I think it would be very difficult
With the guidance of their physician, Baby Does’ parents chose to withhold medical care and surgery due to the conclusion still leaving the child with severe retardation. “Officials at the hospital had the Indiana Juvenile Courts appoint a guardian to determine whether or not to perform the surgery. The court finally ruled in favor of the parents and upheld their right to informed medical decision” (Resnik, 2011). Because of the decision made to withhold surgery and medical care, Baby Doe died five days later of dehydration and pneumonia.
What gives us the right to decide who should live and who should die? That is God's decision. The fetus, the innocent human life whose only protection in the world is its mother's womb can no longer feel protected because even its very own mother could have it murdered. Yet that baby did nothing to deserve to have its life snatched away so suddenly. How can a tiny baby who can feel, breathe, and move be condemned to die without ever saying or doing anything wrong? In our constitution, we are all given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why is it that a baby is not given these rights as well?
On April 15, 1975, the Quinlan family received a tragic phone call at approximately 2am; their daughter, Karen Ann, was in a coma. Earlier that evening, Quinlan was at a party and consumed drugs and alcohol. She became unconscious and eventually fell into an irreversible coma. She was conditioned to be in a persistent vegetative state. Since she was unable to recover from her coma, Quinlan’s parents requested her life support to be withheld. The removal of life support was more complicated than what the Quinlan family imagined it to be. They had to take the case to court to have the request approved. The first round in Superior court, the Quinlans lost. Eventually, the family took the case to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court ruled that Quinlan’s father is appointed as her guardian and can make any decision regarding her care. It took the family over a year to have the approval to remove their daughter from life support; it took five days for Karen Ann Quinlan to be weaned off her respirator. Miraculously, she was able to breathe on her own for the next nine years until she died of pneumonia. This case led to the creation of the “living will” and required medical institutions to allow patients to live their last stage in life with dignity and respect (Karen Ann Quinlan Hospice
In writing about life support many people assume that the family should be the ones to decide whether they should keep or remove their loved one from life support. Although doctors do not say so directly they apparently assume that it is better to remove them from life support. In discussions of doctors one controversial issue has been that they will no longer be suffering. On the other hand, families contend that there is still hope. Others even maintain for that what if. My own view is that they should allow the families to make the decision whether to keep them on life support or not.
We are all affected by crime, whether we are a direct victim, a family member or a friend of a victim. It can interfere with your daily life, your personal sense of safety and your ability to trust others.
Keeping a patient on life support is not a bad idea, it only becomes very controversial when the chances of an individual to survive are very rare. The opinions might be divided on the matter, but it is very imperative to note that the act of placing an individual on a life support when their chances of survival are minimum is unacceptable. It is for this very reason that I tend to suggest that there is no tangible point in placing someone who is very ill in a life-supporting machine. It is one of the most unethical practices that are still being witnessed in the field of medicine.