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.
Infanticide is associated with aiding the death of an infant and infant euthanasia. Jim Holt, contributing author for the New York Times, writes that, “Infanticide is the deliberate killing of newborns with the consent of the parents and society. This concept has been common throughout most of history. In some cultures it served as a form of birth control when food supplies were limited. In others, it was a way of getting rid of malformed offspring. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all condemned infanticide as murder holding that only God has the right to take innocent human life. Consequently, the practice has long been outlawed in every Western nation.” (Euthanasia).
The case study from “Mercy Killing in the Newborn Nursery,” Sara T. Fry and Robert M. Veatch provide an example of a situation where the duty not to treat is evident:
…The infant had been born with anencephaly, or lack of cranial development. The infant’s skull was an open sore that the nurses packed and layered with gauze to give his face a round appearance. Because of lack of cerebral hemispheres, the infant was incapable of any conscious activity. After his birth, the infant was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and placed in a bassinet. He was reported to be kicking and breathing, and his ...
... middle of paper ...
...and can easily be abused when over-interpreted.
Works Cited
Engelhardt Jr., H. Tristram. “Ethical Issues in Aiding the Death of Young Children.” Intervention and Reflection Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. 8th ed. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008.
Marker and Hamlon. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions.” International Task Force. 2009. .
Braddock and Tonelli. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Ethics in Medicine University of Washington Medical School. 2008. .
Holt, Jim. “Euthansia for Babies?” New York Times. 2005. .
Jaquier, Monica. “Frequently Asked Questions about Anencephaly.” 2009. .
Fry and Veatch. “Mercy Killing in the Newborn Nursery.” Case Studies in Nursing Ethics. 2nd ed. Jones and Bartlett, 2000.
Kemp, Joe. A. “Fetus of pregnant, brain-dead Texas woman ‘distinctly abnormal’: lawyers.” NYDailyNews. New York Daily News. 23 Jan. 2014.
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
‘Is it ethical to have a child for the purpose of saving another child’s life?’
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
The doctors in Haiti thought Charlotte should not be resuscitated, undergo anymore horrible treatments and die peacefully. Charlotte’s parents were not happy with the doctor’s guidelines and thought the United States medical care would have better technology and could save their daughter. Charlotte’s parents bought her a doll which 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.
The case of 17-month old Emilio Gonzales was seen and heard nation wide. A conflict between the mother and the physician emerged after the physician no longer expected there be an improvement in his health. This led to the decision of discontinuing providing care for the child and requesting the parents find another facility willing to provide such medical care. The main issue of this case revolved around whether the physician’s decision was morally permissible or legally just. Under Kantian Ethics, Children’s Hospital has moral reasoning to terminate treatment for Emilio and thus is morally justified in withdrawing treatment.
"Assisted Suicide: Finding Common Ground." Lois Snyder, JD; and Authur L. Caplan, PhD. Annals of Internal Medicine. March 21, 2000. v.132, n.6
Cotton, Paul. "Medicine's Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
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.
Parker, Michael. "The Best Possible Child." Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web. 1 Apr 2011. .
Baby Boy Doe’s story was interesting to read and analyze when thinking about ethics. The doctors in this story did what they should have as far as hospital policies are concerned, but they may not have acted as ethically as some would expect. The hospital and the parents are responsible for the death of the child, they each acted as ethically as they could but the end result was devastating. Ethical decision making can be difficult but understanding how to identify an ethical dilemma and moral principles can make the decision easier to work
Several ethical principles that are incorporated in the nursing care of patients on a daily basis are nonmalificence, autonomy, beneficence, justice, fidelity and paternalism. Nurses should strive to comply to as many of the principles as possible. In this case there are principles which support and conflict with the wishes of the patient. The first principle that supports the wish of the patient is autonomy. Autonomy means that competent patients have the right to make decisions for themselves and the delivery of the healthcare that they receive. Another factor that would support the patient’s wish to not be resuscitated is nonmalificence. Non maleficence means that nurses should not cause harm or injury to their patients. In this case the likelihood of injury after resuscitation was greater than if the patient were allowed to expire. A principle that could have negatively affected the outcome of the provision of ethical care was paternalism. Paternalism is when a healthcare provider feels that they know what is best for a patient, regardless of the patient’s desire for their own care. I demonstrated the principle of paternalism because I thought that I knew what was best for the patient without first consulting with the patient or family. This situation might have had some very negative consequences had the patient not have been competent. Practicing a paternalistic mindset might have caused a practitioner in the same instance to force their ideas about not resuscitating the loved one onto the family. This could have caused a sense of remorse and loss of control of care amongst the
McGee, Glenn and Arthur L. Caplan. "Medical Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.