Case 15 "Preventing Physical Maturation In A Brain-Damaged Girl"
1. I believe that Ashley's parents and doctors made a decision that in some ways were in her best interests, and in some way were in the best interests of her caregivers. While they explain that stunting her growth helps with her circulation and being small enough to take her out in public improves psychological stimulation, there are many more benefits listed that make the lives of her caregivers easier. 2. Because there are about 5 main reasons mentioned in favor of the caregivers,including her being small enough for them to carry and more easily move her and bathe her, and not dealing with her menstrual cycle or her ability to become pregnant and reproduce, and only 2 major benefits for Ashley, including better circulation and a more stimulant mind from social outings, we can say that maybe her best interests were not what was weighed here. Most theories would say that this situation is lacking morality -- it seems that Ashley is being stripped of her womanhood and has no say in what she wants her life to be like (though it is noted that she has the mind of a three month old infant). 3. I do not believe that ALL medical interventions are designed to arrest a patient's physical development contrary to human dignity, but in this case I think it's applicable. The womanhood, along with Ashely's dignity, are stripped from her without her consent. 4. Because Ashley is benefiting from this treatment in some ways, we can say that this intervention falls within appropriate medical practice. From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, we would say that more options should be explored so that Ashley receives the best life she can be given, and that maybe this decision is NOT that.
Case 12 "An HIV-Infected Surgeon and A Duty To Disclose"
1. In my opinion, Dr. M does NOT have an obligation to refrain from performing surgery. The percentage of risk to the patient does not outweigh the amount of successful surgeries that Dr. M has, and the amount of lives that Dr. M potentially saves. 2. Dr. M certainly has a moral and ethical obligation to inform his patients of his HIV. By exposing them to such a severe illness without any prior knowledge would be putting that patient's best interests aside and would be frowned upon by nearly every ethical theory. A doctor's major duty is to the well being of his patient, and withholding this information is completely unethical. 3. Dorothea is just as obligated to inform her doctor of her illness as the doctor is to inform his patient. The exposure that Dorothea's doctor will have to her illness is even more so than she would have had toward his illness. The doctor would be dealing with her blood much more than she would be exposed to his cut (if that were to even happen). It would be unethical for Dorothea to not make her doctor aware of her illness.
1) I do believe that Ashley’s treatment was in her best interests. Ashley has the mind of a 3 month old, and she always will. Although some probably argue that she should not have been treated because she could not make the decision herself, however, like I said before, she has the mind of a 3 month old, and will never be able to make that decision. I believe that it is better to stunt her growth, remove her uterus and her breast buds so that she may live the remainder of her life as a happy 3 month old that never has to worry about such complications. 2) It absolutely seems likely that some motivation behind Ashley’s treatment was to convenience her caregivers. I don’t think she was treated for the sole purpose of accommodating her caregivers, but it just so happened that what was best for Ashley, was also best for her parents. 3) I don’t think that medical intervention is contrary to human dignity in this case. Ashley’s treatment was designed to improve her quality of life – physically and psychologically. Having the things that make you a woman are of no use to an infant, and frankly would get in the way of an infant’s happiness and comfort. In my eyes, she is actually “given” dignity. She has been given the opportunity to live a happy comfortable life (as happy as you can be anyway). 4) Medical interventions fall within the bounds of appropriate medical practice because Ashley benefits from her treatment.
Case 15: 1) I do feel that the treatment benefited Ashley. However, (2) I also firmly believe that it benefited her caregivers just as much. This is not a bad thing, though. With her caregivers (parents) at ease themselves, they are more likely to be able to attend to her emotional needs in addition to being able to move her around easier and provide her with greater mental stimulation via various interactions. Unfortunately, because several members of my family have been involved in child care all throughout my life, I have seen the consequences of a child that has been left alone with little interaction or stimulation in the earliest months of development, They are generally slow to respond to stimuli of all types, awkward with their own emotions (often lacking them), exhibit slower mental processing in general, exhibit symptoms of severe separation anxiety disorder, in addition to many other problems throughout development in later life. If Ashley must be halted at the mental capacity of a 3 month old, at least she could be a happy one that her parents are able to care for properly. In the perspective of philosophy, the utilitarian ethic says that the Ashley treatment is ethical, because it creates the greatest amount of good over evil for both the parents and Ashley. Ethics of care says it is ethical because in the scope of caring for Ashley, this can be better accomplished with the treatment than without. Virtue ethics is mixed. It is ethical on one hand because you are acting virtuously by allowing her to live what would be considered a normal life for a 3 month old by giving the treatment. On the other hand, you have a responsibility as a parent to help your child grow into a healthy adult through proper nutrition, etc., so it is unclear. Kantian ethics says it is unethical because you are using Ashley as a means to the end of her comfort and the parents' convenience. She should rather, Kant says, be viewed as a means and an end. 3) in the first 3 theories, the treatment is not a violation of human dignity. According to Kantian ethics, it is. 4) Though unconventional at the present, I believe they do fall within reasonable bounds.
Case 12: 1) When you do the math, it comes out to about .0025 of the 100 patients have a potential to be infected with HIV. This statistic is nearly as small as the chance of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Because of this, I do not feel that Dr. M has an obligation to refrain from surgery. 2) I do feel that Dr. M MUST tell his patients that he is infected. He should explain the risks completely. He should explain the very unlikelihood that a patient would contract the virus from him, including the fact that it is more likely to die by a random lightning strike than it is to contract HIV from him. 3) Dorothea should also, in turn, inform Dr. M of her infection. In this case, She is exposing the entire surgical staff to a lot more body fluid than the surgeon would by cutting his finger. Furthermore, there may be specific protocol for disinfecting equipment used on HIV+ patients.
Case 12 - An HIV-Infected Surgeon and a Duty to Disclose
1.) Provided that Dr. M is an effective/good surgeon then I feel that he should not refrain from surgery, as long as he always informs his patients of the risks and does as much as he can to ensure that he does not transfer the virus to his patients. To me, the good he does as a surgeon has to outweigh the potential harm he may do by transferring the virus to his patients. If he is unable to do good with surgery then he has an obligation to stop as the harm he may do outweighs the good. I feel that this may be complicating to understand but this is a complicated situation.
2.) Dr. M definitely has an obligation to always inform his patients of the potential risks involved with him performing surgery. A failure to do this would result in a failure of him as a physician to give his patients informed consent. A failure to do this is unacceptable, plain and simple.
3.) I also feel that Dorothea always has an obligation to inform any healthcare worker who may come into contact with her of her condition. Failure to do so puts the lives of everyone involved at risk. She has a responsibility to inform Dr. M of this because that is the right thing to do, once again it is plain and simple.
Case 15 - Preventing Physical Maturation in a Brain-Damaged Girl
1.) I feel that both the parents and the doctors judged correctly in determining that the Ashley Treatment was in her best interests. As Ashley is unable to care for herself, she must rely on her parents in order to perform daily tasks which all of us really take for granted. In the passage it said that she has the mental age of a 3 year old. I don't know everyone's experience with younger children but at age 3 they typically never stop asking "why?" and they constantly freak out about the most insignificant things. Think about what would happen to Ashley were she to start her menstrual cycle...how do you explain puberty to a 3 year old? So while this treatment may seem like it more benefits the parents, it also helps to prevent Ashley from some potentially difficult situations.
2.) As I have just said, there is definitely some motivation for this treatment on the parents' end as it makes Ashley easy to handle and take care of. This only affects the morality of their choice if they made this decision in order to make Ashley's life worse. It seems evident from the passage that this is not the case and they only made this decision in order to make her life better and to make it so that they could continue to provide the best care they are able to.
3.) I feel that the answer to this question is not a blanket answer, but rather it varies from case to case. In terms of this case, i do not feel that this medical intervention was contrary to Ashley's human dignity.
4.) Once again, i feel that the answer to this question is not a blanket answer, but rather it depends from case to case. In cases like Ashley's, I feel that such interventions definitely fall within appropriate medical practices. The times in which these interventions are not appropriate are when they are means by which an inappropriate end is achieved. The goal of these interventions is to better the lives of everyone involved while also doing as little harm as possible. If the results of such interventions do not better the lives of everyone involved then they are inappropriate medical practices and should be stopped/never begun.
Case 15: 1) I feel that the treatment was in Ashley’s best interest. If Ashley were to continue growing physically while her mental growth stopped it would cause multiple problems. She would undergo too many changes physically for her to mentally accept and process. I think the doctors and her parents acted correctly and helped Ashley in many ways in the long run. 2) I think that in some ways the decision was made in favor of the caretakers but the first and foremost reason was to do this for Ashley. I think the choice was still morally correct because the decision mostly affected Ashley and it was in her best interest. I think in this case it was the best for not only Ashley but also for her parents. Ashley is affected greatly by her parents because they are the ones who care for her and spend the most time with her. If they are inconvenienced or unhappy then that will ultimately affect Ashley and how she feels. 3) In this case I don’t think the medical intervention was designed contrary to human dignity because it was created to help Ashley and make her life as easy as possible. With the medical intervention Ashley would’ve gone through puberty and would’ve had many more difficulties. The medical procedure helped Ashley live the life given to her with as much ease as possible. 4) I think the medical intervention was well within the bounds of appropriate medical practice. Had this choice been made against Ashley’s will and only for the convenience of others then it would've been wrong, but it was done for Ashley’s well-being.
Case 12: 1) I feel that the chance that the patient to actually be infected with HIV from the surgeon is so small that the surgeon does not have an obligation to refrain from surgery. If you compare the number of people he could infect against the number of people he could save it is inconsequential. He should not stop working because he helps more than he hurts. 2) I think that Dr. M should tell his patients he has HIV and the risks of him performing surgery. It should be up to the patient to decide and take the responsibility. As long as Dr. M tells his patients the risks and stats then there is no problem with him continuing to perform surgeries. 3) Yes, the patient must always tell the doctors about her medical conditions. Not only would it be dangerous for the medical staff but also for her because if she keeps anything from them it could affect her. The doctors have a right to know what they are dealing with and take the proper precautions to protect not only themselves but also the patient.
Case 15 "Preventing Physical Maturation In A Brain-Damaged Girl"
ReplyDelete1. I believe that Ashley's parents and doctors made a decision that in some ways were in her best interests, and in some way were in the best interests of her caregivers. While they explain that stunting her growth helps with her circulation and being small enough to take her out in public improves psychological stimulation, there are many more benefits listed that make the lives of her caregivers easier.
2. Because there are about 5 main reasons mentioned in favor of the caregivers,including her being small enough for them to carry and more easily move her and bathe her, and not dealing with her menstrual cycle or her ability to become pregnant and reproduce, and only 2 major benefits for Ashley, including better circulation and a more stimulant mind from social outings, we can say that maybe her best interests were not what was weighed here. Most theories would say that this situation is lacking morality -- it seems that Ashley is being stripped of her womanhood and has no say in what she wants her life to be like (though it is noted that she has the mind of a three month old infant).
3. I do not believe that ALL medical interventions are designed to arrest a patient's physical development contrary to human dignity, but in this case I think it's applicable. The womanhood, along with Ashely's dignity, are stripped from her without her consent.
4. Because Ashley is benefiting from this treatment in some ways, we can say that this intervention falls within appropriate medical practice. From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, we would say that more options should be explored so that Ashley receives the best life she can be given, and that maybe this decision is NOT that.
Case 12 "An HIV-Infected Surgeon and A Duty To Disclose"
1. In my opinion, Dr. M does NOT have an obligation to refrain from performing surgery. The percentage of risk to the patient does not outweigh the amount of successful surgeries that Dr. M has, and the amount of lives that Dr. M potentially saves.
2. Dr. M certainly has a moral and ethical obligation to inform his patients of his HIV. By exposing them to such a severe illness without any prior knowledge would be putting that patient's best interests aside and would be frowned upon by nearly every ethical theory. A doctor's major duty is to the well being of his patient, and withholding this information is completely unethical.
3. Dorothea is just as obligated to inform her doctor of her illness as the doctor is to inform his patient. The exposure that Dorothea's doctor will have to her illness is even more so than she would have had toward his illness. The doctor would be dealing with her blood much more than she would be exposed to his cut (if that were to even happen). It would be unethical for Dorothea to not make her doctor aware of her illness.
1) I do believe that Ashley’s treatment was in her best interests. Ashley has the mind of a 3 month old, and she always will. Although some probably argue that she should not have been treated because she could not make the decision herself, however, like I said before, she has the mind of a 3 month old, and will never be able to make that decision. I believe that it is better to stunt her growth, remove her uterus and her breast buds so that she may live the remainder of her life as a happy 3 month old that never has to worry about such complications.
ReplyDelete2) It absolutely seems likely that some motivation behind Ashley’s treatment was to convenience her caregivers. I don’t think she was treated for the sole purpose of accommodating her caregivers, but it just so happened that what was best for Ashley, was also best for her parents.
3) I don’t think that medical intervention is contrary to human dignity in this case. Ashley’s treatment was designed to improve her quality of life – physically and psychologically. Having the things that make you a woman are of no use to an infant, and frankly would get in the way of an infant’s happiness and comfort. In my eyes, she is actually “given” dignity. She has been given the opportunity to live a happy comfortable life (as happy as you can be anyway).
4) Medical interventions fall within the bounds of appropriate medical practice because Ashley benefits from her treatment.
Case 15:
ReplyDelete1) I do feel that the treatment benefited Ashley. However, (2) I also firmly believe that it benefited her caregivers just as much. This is not a bad thing, though. With her caregivers (parents) at ease themselves, they are more likely to be able to attend to her emotional needs in addition to being able to move her around easier and provide her with greater mental stimulation via various interactions. Unfortunately, because several members of my family have been involved in child care all throughout my life, I have seen the consequences of a child that has been left alone with little interaction or stimulation in the earliest months of development, They are generally slow to respond to stimuli of all types, awkward with their own emotions (often lacking them), exhibit slower mental processing in general, exhibit symptoms of severe separation anxiety disorder, in addition to many other problems throughout development in later life. If Ashley must be halted at the mental capacity of a 3 month old, at least she could be a happy one that her parents are able to care for properly. In the perspective of philosophy, the utilitarian ethic says that the Ashley treatment is ethical, because it creates the greatest amount of good over evil for both the parents and Ashley. Ethics of care says it is ethical because in the scope of caring for Ashley, this can be better accomplished with the treatment than without. Virtue ethics is mixed. It is ethical on one hand because you are acting virtuously by allowing her to live what would be considered a normal life for a 3 month old by giving the treatment. On the other hand, you have a responsibility as a parent to help your child grow into a healthy adult through proper nutrition, etc., so it is unclear. Kantian ethics says it is unethical because you are using Ashley as a means to the end of her comfort and the parents' convenience. She should rather, Kant says, be viewed as a means and an end. 3) in the first 3 theories, the treatment is not a violation of human dignity. According to Kantian ethics, it is. 4) Though unconventional at the present, I believe they do fall within reasonable bounds.
Case 12:
ReplyDelete1) When you do the math, it comes out to about .0025 of the 100 patients have a potential to be infected with HIV. This statistic is nearly as small as the chance of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Because of this, I do not feel that Dr. M has an obligation to refrain from surgery.
2) I do feel that Dr. M MUST tell his patients that he is infected. He should explain the risks completely. He should explain the very unlikelihood that a patient would contract the virus from him, including the fact that it is more likely to die by a random lightning strike than it is to contract HIV from him.
3) Dorothea should also, in turn, inform Dr. M of her infection. In this case, She is exposing the entire surgical staff to a lot more body fluid than the surgeon would by cutting his finger. Furthermore, there may be specific protocol for disinfecting equipment used on HIV+ patients.
Case 12 - An HIV-Infected Surgeon and a Duty to Disclose
ReplyDelete1.) Provided that Dr. M is an effective/good surgeon then I feel that he should not refrain from surgery, as long as he always informs his patients of the risks and does as much as he can to ensure that he does not transfer the virus to his patients. To me, the good he does as a surgeon has to outweigh the potential harm he may do by transferring the virus to his patients. If he is unable to do good with surgery then he has an obligation to stop as the harm he may do outweighs the good. I feel that this may be complicating to understand but this is a complicated situation.
2.) Dr. M definitely has an obligation to always inform his patients of the potential risks involved with him performing surgery. A failure to do this would result in a failure of him as a physician to give his patients informed consent. A failure to do this is unacceptable, plain and simple.
3.) I also feel that Dorothea always has an obligation to inform any healthcare worker who may come into contact with her of her condition. Failure to do so puts the lives of everyone involved at risk. She has a responsibility to inform Dr. M of this because that is the right thing to do, once again it is plain and simple.
Case 15 - Preventing Physical Maturation in a Brain-Damaged Girl
ReplyDelete1.) I feel that both the parents and the doctors judged correctly in determining that the Ashley Treatment was in her best interests. As Ashley is unable to care for herself, she must rely on her parents in order to perform daily tasks which all of us really take for granted. In the passage it said that she has the mental age of a 3 year old. I don't know everyone's experience with younger children but at age 3 they typically never stop asking "why?" and they constantly freak out about the most insignificant things. Think about what would happen to Ashley were she to start her menstrual cycle...how do you explain puberty to a 3 year old? So while this treatment may seem like it more benefits the parents, it also helps to prevent Ashley from some potentially difficult situations.
2.) As I have just said, there is definitely some motivation for this treatment on the parents' end as it makes Ashley easy to handle and take care of. This only affects the morality of their choice if they made this decision in order to make Ashley's life worse. It seems evident from the passage that this is not the case and they only made this decision in order to make her life better and to make it so that they could continue to provide the best care they are able to.
3.) I feel that the answer to this question is not a blanket answer, but rather it varies from case to case. In terms of this case, i do not feel that this medical intervention was contrary to Ashley's human dignity.
4.) Once again, i feel that the answer to this question is not a blanket answer, but rather it depends from case to case. In cases like Ashley's, I feel that such interventions definitely fall within appropriate medical practices. The times in which these interventions are not appropriate are when they are means by which an inappropriate end is achieved. The goal of these interventions is to better the lives of everyone involved while also doing as little harm as possible. If the results of such interventions do not better the lives of everyone involved then they are inappropriate medical practices and should be stopped/never begun.
Case 15:
ReplyDelete1) I feel that the treatment was in Ashley’s best interest. If Ashley were to continue growing physically while her mental growth stopped it would cause multiple problems. She would undergo too many changes physically for her to mentally accept and process. I think the doctors and her parents acted correctly and helped Ashley in many ways in the long run.
2) I think that in some ways the decision was made in favor of the caretakers but the first and foremost reason was to do this for Ashley. I think the choice was still morally correct because the decision mostly affected Ashley and it was in her best interest. I think in this case it was the best for not only Ashley but also for her parents. Ashley is affected greatly by her parents because they are the ones who care for her and spend the most time with her. If they are inconvenienced or unhappy then that will ultimately affect Ashley and how she feels.
3) In this case I don’t think the medical intervention was designed contrary to human dignity because it was created to help Ashley and make her life as easy as possible. With the medical intervention Ashley would’ve gone through puberty and would’ve had many more difficulties. The medical procedure helped Ashley live the life given to her with as much ease as possible.
4) I think the medical intervention was well within the bounds of appropriate medical practice. Had this choice been made against Ashley’s will and only for the convenience of others then it would've been wrong, but it was done for Ashley’s well-being.
Case 12:
ReplyDelete1) I feel that the chance that the patient to actually be infected with HIV from the surgeon is so small that the surgeon does not have an obligation to refrain from surgery. If you compare the number of people he could infect against the number of people he could save it is inconsequential. He should not stop working because he helps more than he hurts.
2) I think that Dr. M should tell his patients he has HIV and the risks of him performing surgery. It should be up to the patient to decide and take the responsibility. As long as Dr. M tells his patients the risks and stats then there is no problem with him continuing to perform surgeries.
3) Yes, the patient must always tell the doctors about her medical conditions. Not only would it be dangerous for the medical staff but also for her because if she keeps anything from them it could affect her. The doctors have a right to know what they are dealing with and take the proper precautions to protect not only themselves but also the patient.