Terminating a newborn infants life because they will be unable to live a normal life due to severe handicaps, is a very controversial issue in our country. It is debatable weather a disabled infant's life is worth living, even if they will not be able to live the average lifestyle. Should newborn babies with severe disabilities live or die? A handicap individual is defined as "any person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities," (Altun & Ersoy). This definition does not state that a handicap individual cannot live a fulfilling life; it simply says that one's life may be limited. In 1982, there was a legal case called "Baby Doe." The parents of a Down Syndrome child refused to grant permission for an operation, which would save the baby's life, instead, they condemned their child to death by starvation. The parents admitted that their intention was to kill their child, and the courts ruled that the parents have a legal right to deliberately cause their child's death provided that two conditions are met: one, the child must be a newborn baby, and two, the child must be handicapped. With modern medical technology, this condition could have been corrected with relatively simple surgery, (Lyon). Perhaps they killed their child because he would never be an honor student, would never become a doctor or a lawyer. Perhaps it was simply all of the extra work that taking care of a mentally handicapped child must need. Regardless, newborn babies are both alive and human. How is the killing of a human being ethical? The main reason for terminating the life of a newborn with severe disabilities appears to be the prognosis that "the baby almost cert... ... middle of paper ... ...ewborn children, (Jochemsen). In other words, he believes that we should do what is best for the parents, rather than the child. The newborn infant is the main concern in situations like this. Doctors should do anything they can to save these infants lives,' regardless of the parent's opinions. In conclusion, a newborn infant should have every medical intervention possible to save its life, regardless if the child will be left with severe handicaps and unable to live a normal life. We all define what is "normal" differently. Many handicap people live very happy lives, and no one else should deprive an infant of the opportunity to live. According to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...."
Neonatal Palliative Care should be considered for newborns with a debilitating or constraining condition, because the rate of survival for these extremely preterm and sick newborns are low. When palliative services need to be considered, parents and family members should be counseled and educated on the services, although making a choice of this magnitude to withdraw life sustaining measures will leave a void in the hearts of many. Potential is lost and dreams are torn apart which leaves parents and family members to lament the loss. Instead of endure the pain of the loss, the family wants to hold on to the infant, when the best thing to do will be to let go.
Many questions about the causes of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), also known as “crib death,” are still unresolved. The mysterious and elusive nature of SIDS creates problems, doubts, and more questions. This paper will present some of the most commonly asked questions as well as the answers that have been uncovered by scientists after years of research and study.
The 2nd paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence states that: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence par. 2). Does that right extend to everyone? The disabled? The blind? Of course, we would answer yes in a heartbeat because we are taught that “all men” means everyone. What about babies? Especially the unborn ones. Do they count?
It is highly possible that something could go wrong causing the child to suffer. In the early stages of this new technology what would happen if something unexpected was to occur? Would the staff in charge of taking care of the fetuses be able to change settings on an instrument supporting the fetuses? In the rare event of a power outage or a natural disaster would a generator kick in fast enough to support these fetuses? These questions are all things that would have to be dealt with in the early stages of this new technology as well as in later stages. Supporting a life is not something that can be left unattended at any time.
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?
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
Do you believe that an individual with a learning disability, or a coma patient, or a person who has been institutionalized all their life has any less right to life than you or I? How about drug addicts, soldiers who come back with PTSD and struggle with emotional issues, or people who commit vehicular manslaughter on a snowy, dark night? These individuals either at fault or not, but no one would doubt they all have the right to a life. There are no exceptions to the rule, and there is no reason anyone’s right should be stripped
...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.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of every eight babies each year in the United States is born premature. This affects approximately 500,000 babies yearly. Premature babies are defined as babies born more than three weeks before the baby’s due date. Full term babies are born at approximately forty weeks, and premature babies are born at less than thirty-seven weeks. In the final months and weeks of pregnancy, important growth and development occur in the fetus. This is why premature babies are considered to be at-risk for a number of issues. The earlier that a baby is born, the baby’s risks drastically increase for developmental issues.
An abnormality in a baby would be that it doesn’t have a brain or that it hasn’t fully developed the back or spine. An abortion is necessary for that, because it might not be able to survive in the real world. According to the medical article, abortions happen because a baby might have a disorder, such as Down-syndrome, Huntington disease or Tay-Sachs disorder (Medical). Some parents are not capable of taking care of a child with disabilities and therefore, they get an abortion. I think that they make this tough choice because they don’t want the baby to suffer when it comes to the world. They’re looking out for the baby and relieving its pain by not bringing it to the world. I believe that an opponent would agree with an abortion in this situation, because of the severe disorder and that it may not survive outside of the womb. I also think that this is a key moment for the women, because they’re making the right decision if they know that the baby won’t survive. So the mom can choose, but shouldn’t the child have the right to
In the United States one in eight births are preterm (“Funding for Premature Related Research”).Premature means that the baby is born early, which is any baby born before thirty-seven weeks but health problems are usually only a problem for babies born before thirty-four weeks (“Funding for Premature Related Research”). Premature births are the leading cause for neonatal deaths and half of all premature births have no known causes (Lynch and Dezen). Babies who survive prematurity face multiple health problems including cerebral disease, vision and hearing loss, mental retardation, and lung problems (Lees, Reynolds,andMcCartan). Obviously with so many premature babies being born today, with so many unknown neonatal deaths in premature babies, and with all of the health problems for premature babies, there is a problem that must be addressed.The government needs to further fund research for the care and prevention of premature babies to prevent unnecessary death and health problems, cut costs in the long run, put previous findings into effect and reduce parental stress.
Don Marquis states in his article Why Abortion is Immoral that killing someone is wrong because the killing inflicts the greatest possible loss on the victim. He says that it is not the effect on the murderer and the victim's friends and relatives that makes killing an absolute wrong. Although killing does affect those close to the victim the ultimate harm done is on the victim himself due to their loss of future. Marquis states that killing is regarded as one of the worst crimes because it is depriving people of the value of their future. If this view were applied to abortion it would be easy to see how abortion could be considered wrong. By willingly ending the life of the fetus you are willingly ending their possibility of a future. The fetus has the possibility of having a future with emotions, experiences and activities that are the same as human beings and even closer to that of young children. This argument applies in most cases of abortion but not all. For example, to abort a fetus whose life will be filled with unbearable pain and anguish because of a physical or cognitive disorder could be justified because it could be said that the future of the fetus would be bleak and uncertain. In ways it could be stated that the "means justify the end". It must be noted however, that this acceptance would not apply to all situations of physical and cognitive disabilities; only the most severe cases would qualify. For example, there could be no way to justify inducing an abortion because it has been de...
On the principle of autonomy, the patient has right to make choices regarding the treatments. However in case of terminating pregnancy, do autonomy (parent’s decision to terminate the pregnancy) take preference over beneficence and non-maleficence? Can we terminate a pregnancy when it is unwanted? About 98% of abortions in the U.S are performed within the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, and most of them occur when the mother’s life or health is at risk or in cases of severe fetal abnormality (Perry, 2001). In my opinion, in such circumstances when mothers’ and baby’s health are at risk the choice of abortion should not be unethical. I am not sure about terminating fetuses with abnormalities such as anencephaly, Down’s syndrome, and congenital heart defects as presented in case scenarios. I am really not sure if proceeding with abortion would be a right choice or should we proceed with pregnancy depending upon the viability and chances of survival post the
One reason, is that our society holds children in a very protective shell and that many people can relate or emphasize with a loss of a child. Another reason is that this decision or these actions are life and death for someone who can’t make that decision him or herself. Neonatal resuscitation isn’t usually the same treatment for adults. The neonates need assistance with breathing and strengthening their heartbeats rather than restarting their hearts. Depending on how long the resuscitation efforts have lasted and how long the neonate has not been breathing, it might do more damage than good. It could do more harm because the potential brain damage or organ damage that could have happened during the resuscitation due to the lack of oxygen. The legal system also has to approach neonatal resuscitation carefully because every case is different and can’t be handled in the same matter as the last. It’s hard to draw clear lines on the topic of someone’s life. The subject can easily turn into a sticky situation of whether that was the best decision for everyone involved because of the consequences if a single wrong move was
The advocates against abortion still say, what about the radical cases? If a single mother living in poverty is pregnant, and she cannot provide for her baby, should it still be born? If a child with a disability is to be born, should the parents be allowed to kill/abort the child out of pity? I...