NYTimes: A Path for Precision Medicine
The budget President Obama sent to Congress would
establish a coordinated way for researchers to get genetic and clinical data on
a million people.
*new* PAS 4Feb15
NYTimes: Lawsuit Seeks to Legalize Doctor-Assisted Suicide for Terminally Ill Patients in NY
Under New York State law, any doctor who helps a
terminally ill patient die by providing a fatal dose of medication can be
prosecuted under the manslaughter statute.
*new* Vaccines 4Feb15
NYTimes: Spreading Along With Measles: Polarization on a Hot-Button Issue
Extensive news coverage has helped fuel a backlash
against the anti-vaccine movement that is likely to be counterproductive.
*new* Genetic Engineering 4Feb15
NYTimes: Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People
*new* Genetic Engineering 4Feb15
NYTimes: Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People
The House of Commons voted to allow the in vitro creation
of embryos using the DNA of three people, a procedure that could prevent the
inheritance of genetic diseases.
20Jan Belgium's euthanasia law gives terminally ill children the right to die | PBS NewsHour
New law in Belgium allows terminally ill children the right to die
Q: do you think it is morally acceptable to allow dying children the right to assisted suicide?
While I can appreciate both sides of this argument, I would have to lean towards the opinion of the children not being able to make an informed decision based on the facts of their case. To support my position I assert that children do not have the thought process necessary to weigh and appreciate the consequences of an action such as euthanasia. Depending on the child's age, they may not understand what death means. At this point I would assert I do not think it is morally acceptable to allow these children to practice assisted suicide. Most of the children would not be able to appreciate the consequences that would cause to them and their family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the age of the child should depend on what if they are able to practice assisted suicide. However some children are more mature then there age level, i feel like if the child was evaluated to be in sound mind and the family was also talked to about all the options then in some circumstances it might be better for both child and family. knowledge is power in many of these tough ethical situations.
ReplyDeleteChildren should not be given the right to assisted suicide. Brains don't fully develop until our 20s, therefore children don't always fully understand their circumstances and consequences for their actions. Even if the children are explained what would happen, they still might not fully understand their actions.
ReplyDeleteEmily I agree to an extent but is there a significant difference in intellectual capacity between a 17 year old and a 24 year old? For most trivial life decisions sure but could a 24 year old really understand this concept more than the 17 year old? Also what is your opinion on the military because we allow the military to accept 18 years olds to go overseas to face possible death in war. If they are able to comprehend the risks of that situation than why not the intricate details of assisted suicide?
DeleteI do not think that children have the right to decide to die even in the face of a terminal illness. I speak from a personal experience too. This past October my cousin passed away from a terminal illness. I saw that she suffered greatly from her illness. But Children's Hospital provided my cousin and my family with palliative care to ease her suffering. The physicians and nurses provided my cousin with a PCA pump to provide around the clock morphine and she was given Ativan to decrease her anxiety and ease her breathing. All of this helped her pass away on her own rather than give her a medication to stop her heart.
ReplyDeleteAnd I personally believe that any kind or form of euthanasia is wrong. There are always alternative ways to treat pain and many staff today are trained and have the capabilities to help the dying child and their family.
Yes I think it is morally acceptable because I would not want to see my sick child suffer anymore. If they wanted to end the pain and misery I would fully support that. It is sad to end a life but I would not want someone to suffer and be in so much pain that they can't even appreciate their life, especially a child. At a certain age the decision is still purely the parents choice but when the child reaches an age where they understand both sides of the decision I believe they should have a say in the matter.
ReplyDeleteSome of you are saying that a young adult shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that potentially impact the rest of his/her life. But what about having unprotected sex or join ing the military? Young adults do that all the time, and they have potentially big consequences for one's future.
ReplyDeleteTo me, children suffering from terminal illness should be allowed to choose assisted suicide. If someone's condition is not going to improve, then death is the only possible outcome. I do not think it is right to force someone to extend their suffering if there is not a chance of improvement. I do not think children should be permitted to forgo treatment for a curable disease. In this case, there are two different potential outcomes, and the objections raised about the ability of children to make decisions hold water. But if there is no chance of improvement, it is not really about choosing between different consequences.
ReplyDeleteI believe, in these circumstances that children should have the right to decide. As the video pointed out, the parents and three other doctors would have to agree with this as well and it states that the children can do this if they are terminally ill and there is no other treatment option.
ReplyDeleteAt some point when the child is suffering and is in pain do we say okay, enough is enough. There is only so much we can do to try and make it better for them, what if this was the only way to take away that pain, and everyone agrees on it that is involved in the situation.
I truly do believe that a dying child has the right to assisted suicide. A lot of people are saying that a child is incapable of making such a decision, but there are so many stipulations that are held under the law that prevent the child from doing so unless they are aware of the depth of their decision. The child has to be near death, have ongoing unbearable pain, with no options of possible effective treatments. On top of that, their parent has to give permission and they have to be assessed by a psychologist. I think that the well thought out demands of the law make it morally acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Amanda.They are making sure that there are taking care of the issues that people are having. They are laws that are making sure that this decision is the right decision. The death of a child is never easy. They are making sure that this decision is something that isn't taken lightly.
DeleteI would have to agree with this law, mostly because of how thorough it is and because I feel like assisted suicide shouldn't just be limited to adults who are in extreme amounts of pain. The psychological evaluation and the clarification of the physical state of the child by three other doctors is pretty good. One of the arguments that was posed against this law was that modern medicine has advanced to the point where we should be able to keep a terminally ill patient's pain at a tolerable level until the sickness can run its course, however this is not always true, especially in the case of children. I'm assuming that there are some drugs that are not safe to give children under a certain age, and even being terminally ill doesn't warrant their use on underage patients.
ReplyDeleteThis is always a hard situation for me to think about. Children are hard to make death decisions about. Parents never want to outlive their children.It's also very hard to think about children as being terminally ill as well. I would probably agree with the law however. I agree with a lot of people when they say that assisted suicide shouldn't be just limited to adults. The different aspects of the law are really important. A good state of mind is really important as well.
ReplyDeleteThe current event i will comment about is the Britain law to help with different genetic mutations. The goal of the treatment is to take the mitochondria out of the bad egg and take a good mitochondria out of the other persons egg and but it in the former bad egg thus practically deleting the genetic defect from the family race. This is very controversial because when does taking advantage of these cells stop. Designer
ReplyDeletebabies could become part of our future if this is not controlled properly. This topic of manual fertilization such as invetro fertilization is something close to me because i am a product of IVF treatment. My parents like many other couples had trouble conceiving for 5 years. My parent are very strict catholics but how they looked at it is that they would do anything to have children even if it is unnatural. I know the couples that select these genetic cell manipulation will want the best for their children to give them the best quality of life. With moderation this tool can be used as a great tool to give children whose quality of life could have been poor now excellent.As this develops in society i think if it can be controlled it can be a wonderful tool in helping future children and their families. Without this type of technology i would not be here an for that i am thankful that my parents took the chance.
After reading the article on vaccines, I don't understand why parents wouldn't want to vaccinate their children. Vaccines were created to protect us from harmful and potentially deadly diseases. As a health care employee, I would do anything to protect my self and my patients from getting sick. I don't understand why people wouldn't want to protect themselves from these dreadful illnesses.
ReplyDeleteTypically, I am a big proponent of patient autonomy regarding the care they wish to receive; however, when it comes to vaccines, I see no reason why vaccinations shouldn't be a mandatory part of health care. In this day and age, diseases such as polio, measles, etc simply should not happen. Barring a specific medical reason, in my eyes, these vaccines ought to be routine. Herd immunity should take care of the few that can not receive them for legitimate medical reasons.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like the article says, using demeaning and polarizing language against people who choose not to vaccinate their children isn't the answer. This only promotes more distancing between the two sides. Unfortunately, this is a "hot topic" for many people and they will adamantly defend their side without genuinely listening to the others point of view. After all, its more difficult to educate the mis-educated rather than the uneducated. Thus, proper legislature enforcing vaccines seems to be the only real fix.
Austin,
DeleteI agree that using demeaning and polarizing language against people is not the way to go about having people vaccinate their children.I think more education is the answer. People are more interested in asserting their opnion without hearing the other side of the argument. There will be no progeess made on this frone wothout formal educationa and the establishment of some tye of legislation.
Compromise can be made. If parents do not wish to vaccinate their children, then those parents should be required to homeschool their children in order to protect those children who attend public schools. This is only one examle of a comppromise that an be reached, but there has to be formal education and discussion in order for this to occur.
I agree that children should be required to be vaccinated. There have been countless studies to show that there are no adverse impacts developmentally or cognitively. In addition, not having your child vaccinated puts your child at a huge risk for developing these potentially fatal disease that could be avoided if the child was vaccinated.
ReplyDeleteThere are sme cases in which vaccines sould not be required such as those with no immune syste, or taking medications or treatments that compromise the immune system. Also, children who have allergies to the ingredients in the vaccines should not be required to hve vaccines. These children would be protected by herd immunity, but that can only work if all the other children who can have the vaccine actually get the vaccines.
Looking at the article on genetic engineering from a utilitarian stand point, I think it's great. This new step that Britain is taking in medical advances is so beneficial. Being able to prevent different mitochondrial diseases is huge. This would maximize good and minimize harm. Honestly, what kind of lives do children with these kinds of debilitating diseases really have? If you could prevent children from suffering from these things, I think that it would be pretty groundbreaking. Of course, it definitely needs to be regulated so that it is not abused. In general though, I think it is moral and beneficial.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article on vaccinations, I cannot stress enough how important and protective they are and should be seen that way. Like Austin mentioned, I too strongly believe in autonomy of patients. However, vaccinations aren't something to be taken lightly. Unvaccinated children can be harmful to children who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons. The family in California has to live in fear they their 5 year old daughter in remission from cancer could contract measles. I think the only really way to solve the problem is to require vaccinations.
"Belgium’s euthanasia law gives terminally ill children the right to die"
ReplyDeleteTL;DR Belgium passes a law allowing children the right to choose euthanasia. Everyone then gives their opinion on the situation.
On a more basic understanding, I believe that anyone (including children) should be able to choose the right to live or die. It's not really up to us to decide whether or not a child should have the right to autonomy. (Kind of making a bridge here) In a way, it kind of parallels the colonial mindset during the age of slavery. Slaves weren't really given a choice in any of the matters. This is partially due to slaves being looked at as possessions (i.e., things without thought/autonomy). This parallels the situation with adults and children in that adults view children as beings without autonomy (i.e., that they have no understanding of any major principles). In on a more minute/introductory level, children were looked at as mere objects (slaves were a lot more objectified compared to children in today's times).
On a further note, I agree with Belgium's decision because children are pretty readily influenced. You could call a banana a fork and they would probably believe you. It would probably take a lot of suffering and pain for a sick child to disbelieve something an immediate family member says. In other words, in cases where a child's pain threshold is lower than their willingness to believe a family member's ideals is when the child'll probably consider euthanasia (although it should be rare because children hang onto every word their family members say).
It is my feeling that people view death as failure and not a part of life and because of that we will as long as possible find reasons to denounce any act of self death or PAS. However, we are looking at this from a view that is not in accordance with how we might feel if we were that kid faced with a choice like this. Everyone here seems like they know exactly how they would act in this situation but lets be honest none of us know to 100 percent certainty how we would handle this. I see some of you as well as me freak out when we get a less than desired grade on a simple assignment. keeping in mind an assignment which has little to no affect on our lives in the long run. Now imagine being confronted with a real dilemma I doubt not just yours but my own ability to handle living in this kind of circumstance.
ReplyDelete