Based lives. Most human beings can make informed

Based on what you
know about pre- implantation diagnosis, do you think that, given a negative
outcome, destroying the other blastomeres is taking the life of the baby?

The Blastomere Biopsy is a matter of performing the procedure IVF which has
been done for many years and the process is very accurate. By performing the
procedure, would allow a couple the opportunity to make a more informed
decision as to whether they want to proceed with the implantation. In addition,
the only other issue with the Blastomere Biospy would probably be a Bioethical
one due to the method in which the Blastomeres are disposed of, and why, if not
implanted into the uterus.

Genetic Testing: When does life start?

 Although Melissa eventually consents to
ceasarian section but then it was late, one of the babies died.
The possibility that a patient and people empowered by the patients to speak on
their behalf, can refuse life- saving treatment for themselves or the patient,
and be allowed to do so is becoming dangerous ground for those who have taken
personal and professional oaths to save lives. Most human beings can make
informed decisions if they are given the ability and knowledge to do so. These
decisions are not always acceptable to everyone. In the case of the patient it
may be a religious reason, or reason based on fear of the outcome of treatment
or on a lack of consensus on the part of physicians. Whatever the reason may
be, the number of patients choosing not to undergo treatment is on the rise,
and mirroring that increase is the dilemma faced by healthcare providers. The
underlying basis of beneficence is that a person should do right unto others
and prevent harm. This principle is most sacred in a healthcare facility.
However, a patient’s autonomy however crazy sounding or harmful to them is to
be respected. Patient’s autonomy shall be upheld always. Patient consent is the
principle that anyone over the age of 18 has the right to accept or decline all
physical interventions, from operations and injections, to help with getting
dressed. Providing that a person is competent (that they understand what is
going on and the consequences of their actions) and that they are acting
voluntarily, the decisions of adults about physical intervention cannot be
overridden or ignored. Nurses and doctors can suggest treatment, but should
answer the patient’s questions and provide a balanced, full picture of the
options and their consequences. In both two cases, patient’s autonomy has been
severed, patient right was denied for good reasons. While there are laws that
states what circumstances a person’s, wishes should be respected irrespective
of the outcome (permanent injury to invite all in or even death). Health care providers
must battle not only their personal desires to save (or attempt to save) a
patient’s life, but they must also contend with the legal parameters that
govern healthcare operations. In the health care industry there is an
ever-increasing predicament as to a patient’s right to refuse life- saving
care. While the patient’s right to refuse treatment is not a new occurrence,
nor is the resulting legal action that is usually taken when a patient’s
requests are ignored. Despite the principles of deontology, kentanism and
beneficence that guide health care provider, heath care providers should thrive
to protect and respect patient’s right to refuse treatment



Following the delivery of her child, a
patient is bleeding heavily, and her obstetrician proposed and received
approval for a dilation and curettage to take out the piece of the placenta
which had been retained. However, the bleeding continued, consent was then sought
to give the patient a blood transfusion and it was denied based on religious
belief. After an emergency court hearing in which the procedure was approved by
a judge, the patient received the transfusion, recovered and was discharged.
This is the case of Stanford versus Vega in Connecticut 1996. Person’s rights
to refuse care or life-saving treatment have been the paramount of autonomy,
and great burden and moral conflict to health care personal who have sworn the
oath of beneficence and non-maleficence.
Melissa Ann Rowland in Salt Lake City is still in jail for criminal homicide
with charges stemming from depraved indifference to human life and child
endangerment because she refused ceasarian section to save lives of her twin
babies contrary to doctor’s advice.


Ethical Implications of a Patient’s Right to Refuse Treatment

Abortion is the most difficult and controversial moral topic in
society today. Many people view abortion as a murder of unborn children. On
the other hand, some people view it as freedom for women. We need to listen
to both sides, even if that is difficult to do. Both sides have negative and
positive moral insights, even if ultimately these insights are outweighed by
the insights of the other side.

There are two principal morals we need to consider; first, the moral status
of the foetus. Is the foetus a person? At what age in its development does it
becomes a person? Conception? First trimester? Birth? Secondly, the right of
the pregnant woman, does the pregnant woman have the right to decide if she
is going to carry the baby to term or not?
As we consider these difficult issues, it is imperative to distinguish two
other questions. Is abortion morally wrong or should abortion be illegal?
These are distinct issues because not everything that is immoral is
necessarily illegal. For instance, it is immoral to be unfaithful on your
marriage, but it is not illegal.

Another argument that is usually advanced against abortion is the fact that
the foetus is an innocent person. It is morally wrong to end the life of an
innocent person; therefore, it is morally wrong to end the life of a foetus.
Much of the debate regarding abortion has been centred on whether the foetus
is a person or not. If the foetus is a person then it has the right that
belongs to persons, including the right to life.
In my view, women have the right of privacy, ownership of their
body, treatment, and right to self-determination. Therefore, I am not against
it or for it because everyone has they own freedom and belief