Abraham Cherrix is a 16-year-old boy from Chincoteague, Virginia. He was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease and finished one round of chemotherapy. It left him very weak and just about killed him (Moore, 2006). When it reappeared in February, Abraham decided that he did not want to do another round chemotherapy. With Hodgkin’s disease having an 85% survival rate the doctors told Abraham that a second round of chemo would be the most effective in killing the disease. However, Abraham and his parents decided to decline that option and use an herbal remedy called Hoxsey Method instead. With that method not being clinically tested and not having evidence that it actually works the court decided to get involved. Abraham’s parents ended up being charged …show more content…
I believe they did the right thing by taking Abrahams parents to court for not choosing to do another round of chemotherapy. I really like how the court took in consideration that Abraham did not want to do chemotherapy so they made more of a happy medium. The state decided to let him be treated by an oncologist who will cooperate with Abraham so that chemotherapy will not be involved, but radiation or other medical treatment will be (Moore, 2006). Although the first round of treatment really took a toll on Abraham, Hodgkin’s disease is the most curable cancer. With that being said there really is just no reason not to do another round of treatment. His parents really were not doing anything to initially hurt Abraham, but without chemotherapy or other medical treatment his survival rate would be very low. It can be a sticky situation when it comes down to who should be allowed, a minor, a parent, or the court, to make the final decision on the kind of treatment he should receive. For instance, if Abraham had a malignant brain tumor that could not be removed, making chemotherapy almost unnecessary then a 16-year-old boy should be able to decide that he does not want it. Conversely, with this case the survival rate is just too high to risk not getting medical treatment like chemotherapy or radiation, so I believe it was right for the court to make the final decision. Nonetheless, 2 cases will ever be the exact same so the final decision …show more content…
Depending on the age, the cancer, the survival rate, and overall circumstances could change the decision factor for the treatment that they receive. If I had to make a policy for minors it would be that they would be required to receive essential medical treatment that they needed as long as there was a 60% or higher survival rate. That goes into the ethical principle of Nonmaleficence. A person should not have to go through ineffective treatments if there are not any benefits from it. If the survival rate is less than 60% and the treatment is not shown to be very effective then that would be causing needless harm. In that case the minor and parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to go through with it. However, if the survival rate were much higher to which the minor would receive more benefits than harm then the court should have the final say, which would be they have to go through with the treatments. I believe that if there is more than half of a chance of survival then what does one have to lose? That is why I added the survival rate in my policy. As long as it is not going to cause any harm and could only benefit the person then they should receive the treatment. Beneficence and Justice also play a big roll because treatment should only be given if it is going to benefit the person and then
...92‘s Riggins v. Nevada, and 1990‘s Washington v. Harper. In Harper, the court determined that prison inmates could be forcibly medicated if they were a danger to themselves or others, and if the medication was medically appropriate. Riggins, in turn, decided that a defendant already on trial could be forcibly medicated to ensure his competency and allow for the proceedings to continue smoothly, in essence bulldozing one’s 14th amendment rights to “accomplish essential state policy” (Riggins, 1992, as cited in Breneman, 2004, p. 971). Riggins also proclaimed that forcible medication must be the least invasive means of treatment, and provide minimal side effects. Sell was clearly the child of these two rulings, fusing the competing interests of governmental prosecution with the liberty and safety of the defendant.
Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer of the lymph nodes of the lymphatic system; this system is an important part of the body because the cancer can use the lymphatic system to travel around the whole body.
Diane was a patient of Dr. Timothy Quill, who was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Diane overcame alcoholism and had vaginal cancer in her youth. She had been under his care for a period of 8 years, during which an intimate doctor-patient bond had been established. It was Dr. Quill’s observation that “she was an incredibly clear, at times brutally honest, thinker and communicator.” This observation became especially cogent after Diane heard of her diagnosis. Dr. Quill informed her of the diagnosis, and of the possible treatments. This series of treatments entailed multiple chemotherapy sessions, followed by a bone marrow transplant, accompanied by an array of ancillary treatments. At the end of this series of treatments, the survival rate was 25%, and it was further complicated in Diane’s case by the absence of a closely matched bone-marrow donor. Diane chose not to receive treatment, desiring to spend whatever time she had left outside of the hospital. Dr. Quill met with her several times to ensure that she didn’t change her mind, and he had Diane meet with a psychologist with whom she had met before. Then Diane complicated the case by informing Dr. Quill that she be able to control the time of her death, avoiding the loss of dignity and discomfort which would precede her death. Dr. Quinn informed her of the Hemlock Society, and shortly afterwards, Diane called Dr. Quinn with a request for barbiturates, complaining of insomnia. Dr. Quinn gave her the prescription and informed her how to use them to sleep, and the amount necessary to commit suicide. Diane called all of her friends to say goodbye, including Dr. Quinn, and took her life two days after they met.
Jonathan Harr wrote a compelling novel, called A Civil Action, on the actual events of a thrilling court case involving two major corporations and the families who were affected greatly. In Woburn, Massachusetts there were twenty-eight children who contracted acute lymphocytic leukemia between the years of 1964 and 1986. The explanation for the contraction of the disease and even the death of some of the children was discovered in the water; two municipal wells near the town were found to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Eight families filed suit against W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc., accusing them for the contamination of the wells and the death of their children. The families only wanted an apology and the truth but when the case began, discovering the truth became difficult.
For 20 years, in Woburn, Massachusetts, there were more than dozens of cases of childhood leukemia due to contamination of the local wells. This contamination was brought by companies and their chemical waste dumping. The families had children dying and few surviving, therefore they pursued legal help. After hiring a lawyer, the case becomes viral over the duration of the settlement. The struggle between the companies, the lawyer, and the families increased over time but soon saw a solution.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
The major implication of this decision is that each state decides the type of evidence required to withhold or withdraw medical treatment from an incompetent patient. The state ...
I have elected to transcribe my proposal argument on issues regarding cancer chemoprevention. I selected this topic because reasonably minute devotion has been given to cancer chemoprevention research in ethical writings, particularly in relation to the huge quantity of moral studies in cancer treatment exploration. Cancer chemoprevention trials test the ability and care of medicinal agents in averting cancer before its manifestation. I believe that phase III chemoprevention issues can be less prevalent by simply ensuring enhanced communication and etiquette between researchers and investigators.
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.
Malpractice, negligence, and injustice are words that hold great meaning in today’s healthcare system. More than likely, these are the words my mother wishes that she could have uttered during her time of inattentive care. My mother underwent countless rounds of chemotherapy when she was pregnant with me because of a very rare cancer called Burkett’s Lymphoma. This caused for her to birth me at only six months of gestation. The doctor told her that she would have to choose between my life and hers. Like any mother that loves her child, she chose to let me live because she felt as though she had lived her life. Why would a mother ever have to make this decision when preventive measures could have been taken? How is it that a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist (ob/gyn) can continue to practice medicine when they are not effectively taking care of their patients? Whether it’s one or one hundred, every patient deserves the best care from any healthcare professional! My mother’s ob/gyn discovered that my mother had the admonition of cancer when she was
There are few things in life that could be worse than loosing you child to such a horrible disease as leukemia. One can only imagine having such a tragedy repeat itself throughout you community time after time. To compound such tragedies, imagine being poisoned yourself and having to fight some of the largest local corporations to prove the truth and get it stopped. This is the community setting for Jonathan Harr's true-to-life legal thriller A Civil Action. The book was an award winner for "Best Seller" in 1995 and was named the 1995 National Book Critics Circle Award.
Government funding has proven to be essential and effective in the fight against cancer. On December 23, 1971 President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, which promised to finance the quest for the cure. Financial aid such as this has directly benefitted survival rates for those diagnosed with cancer. Forty years ago before such funding was provided, when a child was diagnosed with cancer most physicians considered the patient to be terminally ill and supportive care was almost the only thing offered to the family. However over the last few decades, due to research and participation in clinical trials performed due to funding, the majority of children are cured. Because of the creations of new drugs and therapies as a result of government aid, the survival rat...
...o professionals instead of family members because they are too emotional, and not equipped with the appropriate scientific knowledge to make an educated decision. Futility of treatment and financial support must be taken into account with all cases to determine the level of care provided. People do the best they can in all cases, however, not everyone’s perfect- mistakes will be made.
According to the Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, current laws in the United States of America indicate that minors under the age of eighteen, unless medically emancipated, must have the medical consent of their parent or parents before any health care decision can be made (Boonstra & Nash, 2000). These laws do not include health sensitive medical care like prescriptions for contraception, abortion of fetus, pregnancy care or drug addiction rehabilitation. Pediatric nurses are in a unique position that serves as the facilitator of patient care and patient care decision-making between the pediatric patient and the patient’s parents. In this position, pediatric nurses become immersed in the concept of family-centered care, and because of this, they often find themselves in situations fraught with ethical dilemmas. In health care, there are often times when the medical team and the patient disagree on the plan of care, but in pediatric health care, this becomes even more complex. This is because there are times where the decision made by the parents is deemed inappropriate by the health care team. What do you do if, as the caregiver, you do not agree with the decisions made for your patient by their surrogate decision-maker? It can be assumed that in most cases, parents only want what is best for their children. Research demonstrates, however, that parents do not always serve as the best voice for their child who is suffering, especially when the child is nearing the end of life. Is it ethical for the health care team to assume the role of decision-maker when disagreement ensues over the pediatric patient’s treatment course?
Using semi-structured interviews, the authors explored, using inductive analysis, how parents cope with the moral burden of decision-making. The broad generalizations or themes generated are factors affecting parents’ decision-making. Parents of children with cancer are encumbered with many medical decisions. When parents experience decision-making, they are under very intense levels of stress. The research suggests this stress is not addressed with parents, and therefore, impedes their clarity when it is necessary to make decisions. With health care professionals, such as physician and nurses, providing clear communication as it relates to diagnosis, treatments, side effects, all the while offering emotional support, decision-making may be improved. This is crucial for planning the interventions that meet their child’s needs. The component needed to assist parents during this difficult time include nurses and physicians assessing parents’ information needs as the prognosis changes over time. Research suggests factors such as cultural, spiritual, and holistic care for parents is necessary for them to cope. Not only does this journal article inform how parents cope with and manage their child’s cancer care, but also provide strategies for the health care team to offer support so parents coping skills are adequate to collaborate with their child’s medical team (Kilicarslan-Toruner & Akgun-Citak,