The doctor faces a difficult decision in this situation: should he perform a bone marrow transplant which may or may not benefit the infant, or withhold treatment due to the possible complications, costs, and the lack of a positive outlook for treatment. In this case I believe that the doctor should not perform the experimental procedure. Experimental infers that professionals are not completely aware of the efficacy or the potential consequences of the procedure. This could result in further harm to the infant who already suffers from numerous other issues. The high cost of treatment is also another issue to be considered in this situation. Because the infant is a medicaid patient the funding for his treatment comes from taxes. The poor outlook for the progression treatment for this infant should be taken into account and funding should possibly be allocated for other individuals with a more positive prognosis. I do think that society should bear the financial burden for a patient, to a degree. Unnecessary treatments or those which have little benefit should not be covered by society. As said earlier the prognosis of the patient should determine degree of care. Finally is the question as to whether the parents should have the right to reject or insist on certain treatments. Parents should always have the right to reject a treatment if their intention is in the best interest of the child. I do not believe that a parent should always be able to insist upon a certain treatment. Medical decisions and recommended procedures should be based upon the opinion of a physician, not the insistence of a patient. If a parent insists upon a procedure the final discretion as to whether or not to perform the procedure rests with the doctor.
1. The proper treatment decision should be placed in the parents' hands. They should do what is in the best interest for their family and their child. This decision should not be made by the physician.
2. Society should be expected to cover the expense of the infant if the parents decide to accept treatment. Even though he may be physiologically and mentally compromised, he is still a human being.
3. The parents do have the right to reject further aggressive therapies or insist on them based on what is best for their family and for their child. Even if they cannot financially afford the treatment, their child has the right to life. The physician should place the decision in their hands since the child cannot make his own decision.
No matter the decision made in this case, the outcome will not be a desirable one. If the doctors go through with the treatment, it may treat one of the child's ailments, but will do nothing to treat the others. If the doctors do not go through with the treatment, the parents will absolutely lose their child. I believe that the final decision on the treatment of Bobbie should be left to the parents, after all, it is their child. It is hard to say what I would choose to do for my child in that situation, given I have never been a parent before, but i would recommend as a physician to not continue with the treatment and for the parents to make the child as comfortable as possible it's last few months of life. However, if the parents should decide to continue with the treatment, I believe that society should be responsible for the payment of the treatment just like they would be for anyone else. The child deserves his right to life like any other patient covered by Medicaid. I strongly believe that parents should always insist or refuse whatever treatment they feel necessary for their children, as long as the child's best interest is their own. Doctors should always give proper medical advice, but the final decision should be left to the parent since the child can't speak for himself.
1. As stated in the last two lines of the case, "The chances of success in an infant this small are minimal, and the procedure is largely experimental in infants having this condition. If the transplant is successful, it will alleviate only one of his many problems." If the parents feel that this is a risk they are willing to take and put their child through, then the medical staff must act accordingly if they are capable of conducting the procedure. But, my personal reaction is one of hesitation, especially considering the numerous other issues that must be addressed regardless of if the bone marrow transplant is successful or not.
2. In terms of age limitations, I do not think that a child should be viewed any differently than an adult when it comes to society's contribution. Dealing with shouldering the cost, the parents should be expected to pay the portion they are able to pay and then society should take care of the rest. No one, especially not an innocent child, should be denied a chance of survival, but parents shouldn't free-load off of society at the same time.
3. By law, parents are the legal guardian of a child until the child turns 18. Seeing as this child is unable to make any decisions himself, the parents are expected to make the right decision for their son and for their family. If they decide to reject further aggressive treatment, their reasoning and decision must be respected by the medical staff, just as they respect the decision of a dying man who insists on no further treatment.
1. I think the parents should make the final decision but take into strong consideration what the doctor advises. If the parents want try the procedure and continue fighting for the child's life, then by all means they should. After all, the child has a right to life and I don't think the parents should just give up on it.
2. I think society should cover the medical expenses to an extent, but should not pay for unnecessary treatments. I feel that if they want to keep fighting for the child's life and that requires society paying for procedures that will have a chance of improving the child's chance of living, then society should pay for it.
3. I think the parents do have the right to reject further treatments, if they feel that the life of the child and their family will be better by doing so and it's the right thing to do. I feel the same way about the parents right to insist on further treatments. If they feel that it's the best option, then they should certainly have a say in making that happen.
1. I believe that it is up to the parents to make all final decisions regarding Bobbie's care. These decisions should be made upon full knowledge and consideration of the risks and professional opinions of the physicians. The parents should take into consideration the fact that the chances of survival are minimal, the procedure is experimental, and that this will only deal with one of the child's many health concerns. 2. This infant has the right to life just as any human being does, regardless of his age or condition. I think that if the parents, based on the information and opinions given by the physicians, decide that the surgery is what is best, then society should cover the expenses. Because they are on Medicaid, our society has deemed that these people are worthy and in need of our tax dollars and therefore it is up to society to pay for this surgery. I personally don't like the welfare system as it is and believe that the parents of this child (if capable) should really try to work for and pay for as much of the surgery as possible. I wont go into politics. All human beings have the right to life. This is not limited to the beings with the most utility and there are no age or utility restrictions on who is deserving of this right and/or procedure. 3. I think that the parents do have the right to reject or insist on further treatments if the physicians agree that it may be what is best for the infant. I don't think that parents deserve the right to decide between life and death for this child, but merely what is best for this child. The parents could simply choose whatever is easiest for them (if hypothetically they are selfish and evil people) and want the child out of their lives, at which point I think it is necessary that the physicians step in and decide what is truly best for the child. If it is a decision that really involves options that really could be what is best for the child, then the parents can decide what is best. I know that this sounds almost hypocritical with other opinions that I have had regarding decision making for families and patients.
In this situation I think that the experimental treatment should be done yes it may only help one of his problems but that would be one less that he has to fight and you can only tackle one thing at a time. I also honk the treatment should be done because it would give doctors another opportunity to work wit the treatment and see if it works for future cases. The infant has the right to life as another person does if we say no to this child then should we say that Medicaid should not shoulder the cost of anyone's care and in that case what is the point. I thought that the point of Medicare and Medicaid was to help everyone get the treatment they need and deserve not to say that you have to many problems sorry can't help you. On the other hand the parents have the right to say no some of the experimental treatments and just do care to make the child comfortable. They also have the right to fight for there child get try very avenue to get treatment and act as an advocate for the child who cannot for themselves
The doctor faces a difficult decision in this situation: should he perform a bone marrow transplant which may or may not benefit the infant, or withhold treatment due to the possible complications, costs, and the lack of a positive outlook for treatment. In this case I believe that the doctor should not perform the experimental procedure. Experimental infers that professionals are not completely aware of the efficacy or the potential consequences of the procedure. This could result in further harm to the infant who already suffers from numerous other issues. The high cost of treatment is also another issue to be considered in this situation. Because the infant is a medicaid patient the funding for his treatment comes from taxes. The poor outlook for the progression treatment for this infant should be taken into account and funding should possibly be allocated for other individuals with a more positive prognosis. I do think that society should bear the financial burden for a patient, to a degree. Unnecessary treatments or those which have little benefit should not be covered by society. As said earlier the prognosis of the patient should determine degree of care. Finally is the question as to whether the parents should have the right to reject or insist on certain treatments. Parents should always have the right to reject a treatment if their intention is in the best interest of the child. I do not believe that a parent should always be able to insist upon a certain treatment. Medical decisions and recommended procedures should be based upon the opinion of a physician, not the insistence of a patient. If a parent insists upon a procedure the final discretion as to whether or not to perform the procedure rests with the doctor.
ReplyDelete1. The proper treatment decision should be placed in the parents' hands. They should do what is in the best interest for their family and their child. This decision should not be made by the physician.
ReplyDelete2. Society should be expected to cover the expense of the infant if the parents decide to accept treatment. Even though he may be physiologically and mentally compromised, he is still a human being.
3. The parents do have the right to reject further aggressive therapies or insist on them based on what is best for their family and for their child. Even if they cannot financially afford the treatment, their child has the right to life. The physician should place the decision in their hands since the child cannot make his own decision.
No matter the decision made in this case, the outcome will not be a desirable one. If the doctors go through with the treatment, it may treat one of the child's ailments, but will do nothing to treat the others. If the doctors do not go through with the treatment, the parents will absolutely lose their child. I believe that the final decision on the treatment of Bobbie should be left to the parents, after all, it is their child. It is hard to say what I would choose to do for my child in that situation, given I have never been a parent before, but i would recommend as a physician to not continue with the treatment and for the parents to make the child as comfortable as possible it's last few months of life. However, if the parents should decide to continue with the treatment, I believe that society should be responsible for the payment of the treatment just like they would be for anyone else. The child deserves his right to life like any other patient covered by Medicaid. I strongly believe that parents should always insist or refuse whatever treatment they feel necessary for their children, as long as the child's best interest is their own. Doctors should always give proper medical advice, but the final decision should be left to the parent since the child can't speak for himself.
ReplyDelete1. As stated in the last two lines of the case, "The chances of success in an infant this small are minimal, and the procedure is largely experimental in infants having this condition. If the transplant is successful, it will alleviate only one of his many problems." If the parents feel that this is a risk they are willing to take and put their child through, then the medical staff must act accordingly if they are capable of conducting the procedure. But, my personal reaction is one of hesitation, especially considering the numerous other issues that must be addressed regardless of if the bone marrow transplant is successful or not.
ReplyDelete2. In terms of age limitations, I do not think that a child should be viewed any differently than an adult when it comes to society's contribution. Dealing with shouldering the cost, the parents should be expected to pay the portion they are able to pay and then society should take care of the rest. No one, especially not an innocent child, should be denied a chance of survival, but parents shouldn't free-load off of society at the same time.
3. By law, parents are the legal guardian of a child until the child turns 18. Seeing as this child is unable to make any decisions himself, the parents are expected to make the right decision for their son and for their family. If they decide to reject further aggressive treatment, their reasoning and decision must be respected by the medical staff, just as they respect the decision of a dying man who insists on no further treatment.
1. I think the parents should make the final decision but take into strong consideration what the doctor advises. If the parents want try the procedure and continue fighting for the child's life, then by all means they should. After all, the child has a right to life and I don't think the parents should just give up on it.
ReplyDelete2. I think society should cover the medical expenses to an extent, but should not pay for unnecessary treatments. I feel that if they want to keep fighting for the child's life and that requires society paying for procedures that will have a chance of improving the child's chance of living, then society should pay for it.
3. I think the parents do have the right to reject further treatments, if they feel that the life of the child and their family will be better by doing so and it's the right thing to do. I feel the same way about the parents right to insist on further treatments. If they feel that it's the best option, then they should certainly have a say in making that happen.
1. I believe that it is up to the parents to make all final decisions regarding Bobbie's care. These decisions should be made upon full knowledge and consideration of the risks and professional opinions of the physicians. The parents should take into consideration the fact that the chances of survival are minimal, the procedure is experimental, and that this will only deal with one of the child's many health concerns.
ReplyDelete2. This infant has the right to life just as any human being does, regardless of his age or condition. I think that if the parents, based on the information and opinions given by the physicians, decide that the surgery is what is best, then society should cover the expenses. Because they are on Medicaid, our society has deemed that these people are worthy and in need of our tax dollars and therefore it is up to society to pay for this surgery. I personally don't like the welfare system as it is and believe that the parents of this child (if capable) should really try to work for and pay for as much of the surgery as possible. I wont go into politics. All human beings have the right to life. This is not limited to the beings with the most utility and there are no age or utility restrictions on who is deserving of this right and/or procedure.
3. I think that the parents do have the right to reject or insist on further treatments if the physicians agree that it may be what is best for the infant. I don't think that parents deserve the right to decide between life and death for this child, but merely what is best for this child. The parents could simply choose whatever is easiest for them (if hypothetically they are selfish and evil people) and want the child out of their lives, at which point I think it is necessary that the physicians step in and decide what is truly best for the child. If it is a decision that really involves options that really could be what is best for the child, then the parents can decide what is best. I know that this sounds almost hypocritical with other opinions that I have had regarding decision making for families and patients.
In this situation I think that the experimental treatment should be done yes it may only help one of his problems but that would be one less that he has to fight and you can only tackle one thing at a time. I also honk the treatment should be done because it would give doctors another opportunity to work wit the treatment and see if it works for future cases. The infant has the right to life as another person does if we say no to this child then should we say that Medicaid should not shoulder the cost of anyone's care and in that case what is the point. I thought that the point of Medicare and Medicaid was to help everyone get the treatment they need and deserve not to say that you have to many problems sorry can't help you. On the other hand the parents have the right to say no some of the experimental treatments and just do care to make the child comfortable. They also have the right to fight for there child get try very avenue to get treatment and act as an advocate for the child who cannot for themselves
ReplyDelete