In regards to "Inferior organs transplanted to solve shortage": The largest issue which is minimally addressed at the end of the article is the issue of whether the patients know about the condition of the organ they are about to receive. The article mentioned cases in which the patients did not know that the organ there were receiving was from a smoker with tattoos, opening the door for potential of many diseases and conditions. If they are aware they are on the UNOS list they know that they will be receiving an organ of a certain quality and health. I believe that if the doctor fully informs the patient of the condition of the organ and all risks involved it is then the patient's responsibility to make an informed decision on whether or not to take the organ with knowledge they may not live if they do not take it. There is also an ethical issue that these organs are even available. While it may extend their life, it is hard to decide whether the patients decision is actually theirs or if their doctor told them it was this diseased organ or death. I do not believe in any way that it should be the doctor's choice to use the organ or not. I think it is okay for the physician to make it available as an option, but they should in no way have the final say.
I very similar situation was brought up on the ABC show Private Practice. In the show the doctors were asked to make a designer dwarf child. By the end of the show the decision was not to make the designer baby for the the dwarf couple that desired this dwarf baby. Much like was discussed in the article, the dwarf parents said the difficulties not only they would have as small people raising an average height child, but the difficulties the child would have having dwarf parents. While me as a hearing average height human do see both hearing impairment and dwarfism as a disability, I see where people in these communities do not see their conditions as a disability. I am aware that there is a concern within these communities to keep the population present. I still think there is an ethical issue in bringing a child into the world with a condition that they not have been born with. This is completely disregarding the child's right to an open future. While a deaf person may be able to survive just as well as a hearing person, we are in a world that is under the assumption that one can hear. To bring a child into that world is taking away many opportunities for the child. At the end of the article it speaks of interviews with hearing children of deaf parents. They believe and I agree that the choice should not be made either way. They say the technology could be used to eventually wipe out the deaf community. This is a case where I think nature should have the control and not science.
In regards to "Should patients be forced to participate in clinical trials?":
This proposal is absolutely absurd. The idea that a researcher can force someone to participate in clinical research is a complete disregard for the patient's autonomy. No one can force a patient to be part of a clinical trial, that is ludicrous. There is not one scenario I could think of that would warrant this action. I think instead of trying to force people to participate in his research he should redirect his efforts into furthering knowledge about his research and work on trying to get people more excited about the research so that more people will want to participate in the research. In a utilitarian view this would be a great idea because mandatory participation in research would largely increase the information available on many diseases which could hasten the process in finding medications and cures for illnesses which in the end would lead to the saving of thousands of lives. Autonomy cannot be disregarded here though.
This is a blog for students of my PH 251 (Fall 2009) class. Please use this forum to initiate discussion and participate in our examinations of medical ethics. Your responses will count towards your participation grade.
In regards to "Inferior organs transplanted to solve shortage":
ReplyDeleteThe largest issue which is minimally addressed at the end of the article is the issue of whether the patients know about the condition of the organ they are about to receive. The article mentioned cases in which the patients did not know that the organ there were receiving was from a smoker with tattoos, opening the door for potential of many diseases and conditions. If they are aware they are on the UNOS list they know that they will be receiving an organ of a certain quality and health. I believe that if the doctor fully informs the patient of the condition of the organ and all risks involved it is then the patient's responsibility to make an informed decision on whether or not to take the organ with knowledge they may not live if they do not take it. There is also an ethical issue that these organs are even available. While it may extend their life, it is hard to decide whether the patients decision is actually theirs or if their doctor told them it was this diseased organ or death. I do not believe in any way that it should be the doctor's choice to use the organ or not. I think it is okay for the physician to make it available as an option, but they should in no way have the final say.
In regards to "Imagining designer deaf babies":
ReplyDeleteI very similar situation was brought up on the ABC show Private Practice. In the show the doctors were asked to make a designer dwarf child. By the end of the show the decision was not to make the designer baby for the the dwarf couple that desired this dwarf baby. Much like was discussed in the article, the dwarf parents said the difficulties not only they would have as small people raising an average height child, but the difficulties the child would have having dwarf parents. While me as a hearing average height human do see both hearing impairment and dwarfism as a disability, I see where people in these communities do not see their conditions as a disability. I am aware that there is a concern within these communities to keep the population present. I still think there is an ethical issue in bringing a child into the world with a condition that they not have been born with. This is completely disregarding the child's right to an open future. While a deaf person may be able to survive just as well as a hearing person, we are in a world that is under the assumption that one can hear. To bring a child into that world is taking away many opportunities for the child. At the end of the article it speaks of interviews with hearing children of deaf parents. They believe and I agree that the choice should not be made either way. They say the technology could be used to eventually wipe out the deaf community. This is a case where I think nature should have the control and not science.
In regards to "Should patients be forced to participate in clinical trials?":
ReplyDeleteThis proposal is absolutely absurd. The idea that a researcher can force someone to participate in clinical research is a complete disregard for the patient's autonomy. No one can force a patient to be part of a clinical trial, that is ludicrous. There is not one scenario I could think of that would warrant this action. I think instead of trying to force people to participate in his research he should redirect his efforts into furthering knowledge about his research and work on trying to get people more excited about the research so that more people will want to participate in the research. In a utilitarian view this would be a great idea because mandatory participation in research would largely increase the information available on many diseases which could hasten the process in finding medications and cures for illnesses which in the end would lead to the saving of thousands of lives. Autonomy cannot be disregarded here though.