"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). This is just one of the several scriptures found in the bible from which the Jehovah Witnesses base their beliefs. To summarize the above excerpt, Jehovah Witnesses strongly believe that contributing to the health of their bodies by way of any type of blood material is not intended by God’s will. However in dire cases, ethical questions need to be raised regarding the patient’s mental capacity and legal competence. In particular cases concerning minor patients, where mental capacity is accounted for, parents should not have the dominant opinion about how their child wants to receive surgery based on their own personal beliefs.
The hospital was presented with a difficult decision to make concerning a particular case involving a minor Jehovah Witness. A fifteen year old girl was brought in to the emergency room after being the subject of an automobile accident. There are four options the doctor can consider: refusal of the surgery, perform the surgery without blood considering the parent’s wishes, perform the surgery with blood respecting the decision of the patient, or complete the surgery with blood and do not inform the parents.
When asking whether or not parents should make the decision for the child in this case, concerns could be raised as to if the patient is endangered by their own parents. When a parent is basing a lifesaving decision on religious beliefs that the patient might not even reciprocate, is the parent looking out for the child or their religious reputation? In this particular case, the patient’s surgery would be a low-risk and high-benefit procedure and the patient expresses her wishes in favor o...
... middle of paper ...
...usion? Remember, Jehovah requires that we abstain from blood. This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people's blood or even our own blood that has been stored. (Acts 21:25) So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God's laws.—Matthew 16:25.
Justice is the fourth and last principle of medical ethics. On all legal points, any of the situations the doctor can choose are perfectly legal, however, there is a conflict of interest in this case concerning the religious beliefs of the patient versus the religious beliefs of the parents and church. Is it admissible to perform the surgery knowing the legal guardians do not approve of the patient’s wishes?
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...
Healthcare creates unique dilemmas that must consider the common good of every patient. Medical professionals, on a frequent basis, face situations that require complicated, and at times, difficult decision-making. The medical matters they decide on are often sensitive and critical in regards to patient needs and care. In the Case of Marguerite M and the Angiogram, the medical team in both cases were faced with the critical question of which patient gets the necessary medical care when resources are limited. In like manner, when one patient receives the appropriate care at the expense of another, medical professionals face the possibility of liability and litigation. These medical circumstances place a burden on the healthcare professionals to think and act in the best interest of the patient while still considering the ethical and legal issues they may confront as a result of their choices and actions. Medical ethics and law are always evolving as rapid advances in all areas of healthcare take place.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
This paper will focus on the two different sides of adolescents and their choice concerning end of life care. The first section will be adolescent centered and will help to provide a backbone to reinforce the choices they legally should be able to make using their right to autonomy. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine did a very helpful study, that is pro adolescent choice that will be discussed in the first section of the paper. The second section will focus on Paternalism and the ethics behind the health care team making the ultimate decision that will benefit the patient. As well as information and studies in regard to an adolescent’s decision making process, and their tendency to be impulsive.
In the book The Right to Die by Elaine Landau a story is shared of a young boy. The kids name is Juan and he was seventeen years of age, he had a terrible tumor that had to be operated on. The first surgery he had went well, but dismally the tumor came back again. Subsequently after the first surgery Juan was weak and almost died. The doctor and parents decided that he needed another surgery, however, Juan disagreed. He wanted to live the last few months of his life without pain, he wanted to go enjoy time at school and with friends. Instead his parents forced him into surgery and sadly died three weeks after surgery. The fact of the matter is that minors have a voice too, and it needs to be understood. Exactly like the Right to Die, some want the option to use it and others do not, but as long as it is available terminally ill patients feel more welcoming to the thought of death (Landau
We all can agree that blood is the most precious liquid that a human being possesses, and without it, life and existence would be diminished. Up to this date, Jehovah’s Witness have refused blood transfusion procedures due to their religion, but this issues becomes more of a predicament when it jeopardize somebody else’s life; a life of fetus in a pregnant woman. Based on Jehovah’s Witness’s Old Testament and New Testament, “It seem good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food scarified to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immortally. You will avoid these things Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29).
The ethical discernment model described by Slosar (2004) and developed for use at Ascension Health will assist us as we analyze this case. It reminds us that discernment engages our spirituality, intellect, imagination, intuition, and beliefs. It is decision-making that reaches into the heart of our beliefs about God, creation, others, and ourselves. It therefore requires structured time for reflection and prayer from the beginning and throughout the process.
God and that God is the only on who has the right to take life. In the
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.
Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.
Charlotte’s parents thought otherwise, the Ethics Advisory Committee had to get involved. The debate surrounded if the doctors were in the right to control the life of someone who were incapable of deciding themselves, or is it the parents right. The Ethics Advisory Committee, stated that the parents were superior to those of the hospital and the hospital should conduct with less painful test. Charlotte’s parents wanted the doctors to continue testing until it was determined that her life diffidently had no chance of remaining. Because, of Charlotte’s parents’ desires unfortunately caused Charlotte to die a painful death without her parents. If the patient is unable to speak for their selves, the family should be able to have some say in the medical treatment, however; if the doctors have tried everything they could do, the hospital should have final decisions whether or not the patient dies or treatment
The ethical situation in question is a culmination of intolerance, ignorance, cultural insensitivity, and failure to follow hospital protocols and procedures. The location of the facility in which the ethical dilemma took place is a small, rural hospital in the Midwest of the United States of America. A new male patient has been admitted and he is currently a practicing Muslim. The facility does not have a large Muslim population and does not have any cultural protocols in place to accommodate the Muslim religion.
A patient’s spouse or other family members have no right to override the patient’s decisions or their doctor’s understanding of them. Though, the patient’s doctor does have the right to overrule their living will. For example, if a patient’s doctor believes that going along with their wishes in spite of their living will, will harm someone else like an unborn child in a mother’s womb, he can overrule it. Circumstances defined in a person’s living will may not always concur some situations. When this happens, the patient’s medical care team will make a decision based on the “spirit” of the living will to be careful, and will contact anyone named in the patient’s living will along with their primary care doctor or clergy in attempt to spell out the patient’s desires since they are not able to overrule the living will. Clearly, when everyone involved are in agreement with the patient’s requests, the situation is made much easier. Legal and ethical dilemmas are possibly created if everyone involved is not supportive. A patient should review his or her living will every year due to advancements in science and medical treatments that may affect them in the future along with the possibility of their feelings changing, based on many factors and laws that may change over the years. There are three different types of living wills a person can make. One is a statement made by a person diagnosed with a terminal condition before any deterioration and after all medical measures have been exhausted. Another is a statement made by a person of good health and quality of life that is written prior to becoming ill. The third is a statement of issues surrounding a patient’s religious convictions which could include their spouse, stepchildren, adopted...
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
Another ethical debate could be the ability to give informed consent. It can be argued that a child cannot fully be aware of what is happening until they reach a certain age (in South Australia, the age of medical consent is 16 years old) and therefore they cannot express their full informed consent for medical procedures until the age of 16 (MIGA, 2011). In any medical procedure, the patient must be informed about any risks and possible complications that may arise during the procedure and must be able to understand these risks and possible