Subject(s)
Ethics, Medical , Fertilization in Vitro/adverse effects , Embryo Disposition , Female , Humans , Individuality , Infertility , Male , Morals , ZygoteSubject(s)
Disclosure , Ethics, Medical , Genetic Privacy , Genetic Testing/standards , Informed Consent , Personal Autonomy , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Cultural Diversity , Female , Genes, BRCA1 , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Physician-Patient Relations , Risk Assessment , Trust , United StatesABSTRACT
The decision to withhold or withdraw life support in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is common but is never routine. Often, moral demands make such decisions difficult and emotionally exhausting. But, what is perhaps more challenging from the moral point of view is the transition from the delivery room to the NICU. A satisfactory analysis of the moral issues of delivery room practices must include a discussion of quality of life, the best interest of the infant, the best interests of the family members, and futile treatment. Although these topics are relevant in any discussion of the moral justification of the omission, withdrawal, or use of treatment for patients, they are especially telling when entertained in the context of the transition of the fetus to a newborn. This article uses these four topics as a moral compass for certain decisions made in the delivery room.
Subject(s)
Delivery, Obstetric , Ethics, Medical , Intensive Care, Neonatal , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Life Support Care , Medical Futility , Quality of LifeSubject(s)
Disclosure , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Education as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Truth Disclosure , Comprehension , Dissent and Disputes , Group Processes , Humans , Moral Obligations , Patient Participation/legislation & jurisprudence , Personal Autonomy , Physician-Patient Relations , Risk Assessment , Trust , United StatesSubject(s)
Decision Making , Medical Futility , Patient Advocacy , Conflict, Psychological , Female , Humans , Infant , Physician-Patient Relations , Quality of LifeSubject(s)
Disclosure , Ethics, Medical , Human Experimentation , Human Genome Project , Informed Consent , Genetic Research , History, 20th Century , Humans , Informed Consent/history , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Personal Autonomy , Risk Assessment , Trust , Truth Disclosure , United StatesSubject(s)
Ethics, Medical , Legal Guardians , Patient Advocacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Personal Autonomy , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Life Support Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Futility , Philosophy, Medical , Professional-Family Relations , Quality of Life , Refusal to Treat/legislation & jurisprudence , Resource Allocation , Treatment Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Withholding TreatmentABSTRACT
Advances in neonatal medicine have led to the survival of children who suffer pain and psychosocial deficits. There are those who justify the continued existence of these children by denying that there is a minimal quality of life below which life is not worth living or by claiming that we cannot judge the quality of life of another. Both of these viewpoints are found wanting. What is proposed is that infants are persons and that personhood confers human rights which include the right to die. The nature of human rights yields a general criterion by which to determine when the omission or cessation of treatment for infants is morally required.
Subject(s)
Abnormalities, Multiple , Ethics, Medical , Euthanasia, Passive , Euthanasia , Human Rights , Infant, Newborn , Moral Obligations , Patient Advocacy , Right to Die , Stress, Psychological , Value of Life , Withholding Treatment , Child Abuse/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Patient Selection , Personhood , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment , United StatesSubject(s)
Child Advocacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Government Regulation , Infant, Premature, Diseases/therapy , Life Support Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality of Life , Stress, Psychological , Value of Life , Withholding Treatment , Child Abuse/legislation & jurisprudence , Ethics, Medical , Euthanasia, Passive , Federal Government , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Selection , Risk Assessment , United StatesSubject(s)
Commerce , Economics , Morals , Research Support as Topic , Diffusion of Innovation , Humans , Motivation , Social Justice , United StatesABSTRACT
Professor Goldworth takes up the cudgels in defence of the contemporary moral philosopher, who, he says, should indeed have a role in helping doctors to make clinical decisions based on philosophical theory; Mr. Thompson in his reply says that Professor Goldworth has misinterpreted his earlier argument. Mr. Thompson reiterates his view that the practice of medical ethics must begin with the professionals -- the doctors and nurses--although the philosopher could perhaps find himself part of a medical team. In these circumstances Professor Goldworth and Mr. Thompson would be in complete agreement. Both writers seem to be reflecting very clearly the ideas current in American and British climates of opinion.
