(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

Assessment 3: Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case Assessment 3: Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case Assessment 3: Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case https://www.onlinenursingessays.com/assessment-3-should-we-withhold-life-support-the-mr-martinez-case/ Mr. Martinez was a seventy-five-year-old chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient. He was in the hospital because of an upper respiratory tract infection. He and his wife had requested that CPR not be performed should he require it. A DNR order was written in the charts. In his room on the third floor, he was being maintained with antibiotics, fluids, and oxygen and seemed to be doing better. However, Mr. Martinez’s oxygen was inadvertently turned up, and this caused him to go into respiratory failure. When found by the therapist, he was in terrible distress and lay gasping in his bed. Write a 2-3 page paper that examines the moral and ethical issues involved in making a decision regarding limiting life support. End-of-Life Issues With our framework of ethical theories and principles in hand, we begin our look at some of the critical ethical issues in our contemporary world, starting with end-of-life issues. This assessment covers ethical questions related to end-of-life care. Passive euthanasia is the removal or refusal of life-sustaining treatment. Examples of passive euthanasia include removal of a feeding tube or a ventilator, or forgoing a life-prolonging surgery. Passive euthanasia is legal in all 50 states, and the principle of autonomy gives informed patients the right to refuse any and all treatments. Patients who are unable to make such decisions in the moment (because they are unconscious, for example) might have made their intentions clear beforehand with an advance directive or similar document. Things become more complicated, however, when a patient who is unable to make treatment choices has not made his or her wishes clear, either formally in a written document, or informally in conversations with family members or friends. Another problem concerns cases in which there is disagreement about whether the treatment is sustaining the life of a person in the full sense or merely as a body that, because of severe and irreversible brain trauma, is no longer truly a living person. Active euthanasia, or assisted suicide, introduces further difficult moral questions. A patient who has a terminal illness and who has refused treatments that would merely prolong a potentially very painful and debilitating death might want the process of dying to be hastened and made less painful. The patient might want to take his or her own life before the disease reaches its horrible final stages. Should patients be legally allowed to have help in this endeavor? If suicide itself is not morally wrong, at least in cases like these, is it wrong for another person to directly help bring about the patient’s death? Is it wrong for doctors, a role we naturally associate with healing and the promotion of life, to use their medical expertise to deliberately end a patient’s life if the patient wants this? Demonstration of Proficiency By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria: Competency 1: Articulate ethical issues in health care. Articulate the moral issues associated with limiting life support. Competency 2: Apply sound ethical thinking related to a health care issue. Demonstrate sound ethical thinking and relevant ethical principles when considering limiting life support. Explain important considerations that arise when contemplating limiting life support. Competency 5: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others and is consistent with health care professionals. Exhibit proficiency in clear and effective academic writing skills. Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assessment 3: Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case Preparation Case Study: Mr. Martinez. This media piece provides the context for this assessment; make sure you have reviewed the case study thoroughly. Additionally, it may be useful to think through the following issues as they relate to Mr. Martinez’s case: Should Mr. Martinez be transferred to intensive care, where his respiratory failure can be treated by a ventilator, and by CPR if necessary, and his oxygen level can be monitored? What are the key ethical issues or models at play in this case study? What are the key end-of-life issues at play in this case study? How can an understanding of models and best-practice help to guide health care practitioners to make ethical and legal decisions? Instructions In a 2–3 page analysis of the case study, address the following: The patient’s directives. The patient’s quality of life. The family’s stated preferences. The moral issues associated with limiting life support. The ethical principles most relevant to reaching an ethically sound decision. Important considerations such as implications, justifications, and any conflicts of interest that might arise because of the patient’s respiratory failure. When writing your assessment submission assume that doctors cannot contact Mrs. Martinez and must make this choice on their own. To help you reach an objective, ethically sound decision, draw upon concepts and arguments from the suggested resources or your independent research. Support your response with clear, concise, and correct examples, weaving and citing the readings and media throughout your answer. Submission Requirements Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message. APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to current APA style and formatting guidelines. Length: 2–3 typed, double-spaced pages. Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point. ACTIVITY ONE Thinking about Joe’s case, answer the following questions. Choose one per question. Question 1: Would these actions, even at the patient’s request, be classified as active or passive euthanasia? Active   Passive   Correct Answer: Passive Joe’s case would count as passive euthanasia, since he’s refusing life-saving treatment. Passive euthanasia is usually considered an act of omission: to take no steps that would, if taken, prevent a patient from dying. Inorrect Answer: Active Active euthanasia is a deliberate and definite action that would cause a patient to die. The difference is sometimes put this way: passive euthanasia is allowing apatient to die, while active is directly causing them to die. Question 2: Does Joe have a right to refuse treatment on the respirator? Yes– The “full recovery” that his family asks for may not be realistic. Staff consider him competent to make his own decisions, and legally he may refuse treatment.   No– Joe’s family know him better than the staff, and they should be granted control over the decisions regarding his care. The health care providers should defer to their wishes in order to avoid a lawsuit.   Correct Answer: There is no correct answer. There may not be a clear answer in this case. If Joe is competent (as we’re told in the study), and there’s a rigorous set of steps in place for staff to determine competency, then he has a moral right to refuse all treatment, and possibly a legal right in many, if not all, states. On the other hand, an argument could be made that Joe can be declared competent only if staff have taken steps to treat his anxiety.   ACTIVITY TWO Thinking about Elizabeth’s case, answer the following questions. Choose one per question. Question 1: Will any of the theories of suicide permit Bouvia to deliberately starve herself to death? Religious and theological: Human lives belong to God.   Human life is so precious: Life is the greatest of all human goods.   Consequentialist: Suicide harms the community.   The Wedge Principle: Suicide harms other individuals.   Greenberg’s Paternalism: These individuals do not really want to die, so efforts to save them are justified.   Correct Answer: There are no correct or incorrect answers. Although active suicide is discouraged by all of these theories, “All major theories appear to allow room for exceptions” that may open the door to an ethical acceptance of passive suicide (Garrett, p. 171). In the theories offered in this question, this often involves the concepts of compassion and mercy for the suffering individual. However, this does not mean that the facility and caregivers are legally able to condone Bouvia’s requests. (Theories credited to Garret et al, p. 169-173) Moral theories and ethical principles, and what is their role in health care ethics. Moral theories are attempts to explain the nature of morality, and to establish foundations for our own moral decisions and moral judgments about the actions of others. In doing so, moral theories look either to human nature or to a source beyond human nature, as religiously oriented theories do. Philosophers have long been interested in trying to understand morality by moving beyond common sense beliefs about right and wrong and to find foundations for common sense beliefs that will both correct them, when needed, and lend them rational support. Here are the moral theories most relevant to health care ethics: Utilitarianism Deontology Natural Law Theory Virtue Ethics Ethical principles are not as foundational as moral theories. Rather they can be grounded in common sense moral beliefs about right and wrong and also in widely shared values. The fundamental ethical principles of health care are commonly accepted to be the following: Autonomy Beneficence Non-malfeasance Justice Question 2: Should the hospital cooperate with her wishes? Yes– “The individual person and not the community is the intrinsic good” (p. 170 ) Individual autonomy is paramount; Bouvia has the right to make her own decision to not have her actions interfered with. Court cases have set relevant precedents. Legally, the patient has the right to refuse treatment. Controlled cooperation on the part of the caregivers is appropriate in this scenario.   No– Because Bouvia admitted herself to the care of a healthcare facility as a suicide risk, she relinquished some of her rights. The facility and caregivers have a responsibility to keep her alive.   Correct Answer: No– Because Bouvia admitted herself to the care of a healthcare facility as a suicide risk, she relinquished some of her rights. The facility and caregivers have a responsibility to keep her alive. Bouvia admitted herself into the facility as a potential suicide. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether anyone who is not terminally ill has a right to receive assistance in ending their own life. Bouvia’s case is complex, since it’s somewhat between active and passive euthanasia. She’s not asking for assistance in ending her life in terms of receiving and having health care workers administer drugs to her that would end her life. However, she is asking for help in dying painlessly (starving herself, but with the aid of painkillers). Moral theories and ethical principles, and what is their role in health care ethics: Both moral theories and ethical principles can be used in the health care setting to guide our attempts to reach sound moral decisions and judgments. They support viewpoints by providing them greater objectivity. By using a moral theory or ethical principle, one can move beyond merely voicing an opinion. The theories and principles enable us to construct arguments. When we are able to provide arguments for our views, we offer reasons, or evidence, for our views that should be compelling to others. In other words, moral theories and ethical principles in debates in health care ethics can take us beyond mere subjective feeling and into the realm of rationally supported positions.   CASE ONE “Joe contracts bilateral pneumonia. He is treated with antibiotics and put on a mechanical respirator. After a few weeks, the pneumonia improves and the physician starts to wean Joe from the respirator. Even with a gradual approach, the weaning fails and Joe demands to be put back on the respirator when he becomes terrified at being short of breath. The physician feels that the ultimate chances of weaning Joe are no more than 20 percent. Joe, 80 years old and accustomed to being in control, becomes discouraged and increasingly unable to bear the painful medical procedures (constant intravenous feedings, frequent needle punctures for arterial blood gases, suctioning, etc.) After three weeks of unsuccessful attempts, Joe refuses to cooperate. He asks that the respirator be disconnected. “I want to die,” he states. Despite the pain, Joe is alert and aware and is, in the opinion of the staff, fully competent. His wife and one son keep begging the physicians and nurses to do something to help Joe recover fully.” (Garrett, Baillie & Garrett, 2001, p. 194) Consider These Questions “Does Joe have a right to refuse treatment on the respirator? Do the physician and the nurses have a right or duty to help Joe psychologically and pharmacologically to overcome his anxiety when taken off the respirator? Do the wishes of the family have ethical or legal weight in such cases? Physicians are often sued for keeping a person on a respirator….is the mere fact that the family may sue a justification for not following the expressed wishes of a competent person?” (Garrett, et al., 2001, p. 194) Ethical Rationale “There is a dispute as to whether the difference between active and passive killing is of any ethical significance in the context of euthanasia…This dispute has become an important issue in the legal discussion of physician-assisted suicide….The terms are, at least descriptively useful, and since society still accepts the distinction as having some ethical utility, it is disregarded at one’s risk. …should it be considered that active euthanasia ought, with suitable safeguards, be made legal?” (Garrett, et al., p. 195, 2001) CASE TWO “Elizabeth Bouvia was diagnosed as having cerebral palsy at the age of six months. At age 10 she was placed in an orthopedic hospital, where she remained for seven years. She earned a B.S. degree in social work, married and for a year attempted unsuccessfully to have a child. Her husband, whom she had met as a pen pal while he was serving a sentence in jail, has left her. Elizabeth has dropped out of graduate school because of difficulties in finding a clinical placement required for her program. As a result of this, the state has threatened to take away her assistance to transportation. At this time, Elizabeth Bouvia has admitted herself voluntarily to the hospital on the grounds that she is suicidal, a quadriplegic victim of cerebral palsy and confined to a wheelchair. She has limited control of her right hand and she needs to be fed. She also has severe progressive arthritis that causes constant pain. Her condition is in no way life threatening, and she has a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years. She seems to have plans to starve herself to death in the hospital, away from friends and relatives. She has refused to eat solid food, The physician has threatened to have her certified as mentally ill so that he can force-feed her. The hospital also has threatened to put her out on the sidewalk. The hospital seeks to transfer her to another facility, but is unsuccessful. In the meantime, the hospital force-feeds Elizabeth. She repeatedly tears the nasogastric tubes from her nose. The tube is forcibly reinserted each time she removes it. Elizabeth seeks legal assistance. The American Civil Liberties Union enters the case and applies for a court order restraining the hospital from discharging her or force-feeding her. Bouvia testifies that she is no longer willing to live, since she found it disgusting and humiliating to live so dependent a life. She wants to starve to death while nurses give her painkillers and keep her clean and comfortable. She has a metabolic condition that causes her blood to become excessively acidic without food. One internist treating her estimates that she could be dead within five days because of the condition. The first court decided that Bouvia had a legal right to starve herself to death at home, but not to demand that a health care facility help her while she did this. Another court finally decided that she had a right to hospital care while starving herself to death. Many hearings later, Bouvia was still alive. This might justify a health care provider who said that Bouvia was only seeking attention and knew how to work the system.” (Garrett, et al., pp 194-195, 2001) Consider These Questions “Will any of the theories of suicide permit Bouvia to deliberately starve herself to death? Is Bouvia competent? Would the hospital be ethical in getting a guardian ad litum who could then consent to a feeding tube? Would it be ethical for health care providers to cooperate with someone who is not terminally ill and still has the minimum quality of life, that is, is able to interact with others?” (Garrett, et al., p. 195, 2001) Ethical Rationale What are the current laws “with regard to the right of non-terminal patients or their surrogates to refuse treatment or demand withdrawal of treatment, including the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration?” (Garrett, et al., p. 195, 2001) Should Life Support Be Withheld? Mr. Martinez’s Situation Ethical dilemmas, healthcare standards, and moral issues have all had a significant impact on patients’ treatment rights. The right to make decisions or refuse treatment has been significantly impacted, as it remains unclear how best to uphold and practice this right when providing healthcare services. Numerous moral and ethical dilemmas have influenced the decision to withdraw, limit, or withhold end-of-life support in the current era. This has been attributed to several contentious healthcare decisions. End-of-life decisions and preferences have resulted in euthanasia and dysthanasia being practiced (Cano et al., 2020). End-of-life decisions are influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural values and religious beliefs. For example, patients have made these choices based on their religious beliefs, traditional values, and cultural practices. As a result, other individuals have made similar choices to ensure they live high-quality lives while they are still alive. Along with this, this paper discusses the ethical and moral issues surrounding end-of-life care. The paper accomplishes this goal by incorporating Mr. Martinez’s case into its discourse. The Ethical Consequences of Life Support Reduction The analysis of ethical and moral concerns about limiting life support has intersected with the analysis of underlying assumptions. To begin, patients’ decisions to withdraw or withhold end-of-life care do not reflect suicidal intent, as the primary cause of death is the patient’s condition. Second, care practitioners’ decisions to honor patients’ end-of-life wishes do not constitute murder or euthanasia. Thirdly, patients and their relatives wish to extend the lives of their loved ones in any way possible. Thirdly, healthcare professionals have a critical role to play in ensuring peaceful and dignified deaths and end-of-life experiences. They must ensure that patients die with as little or no pain as possible. The debate over whether or not to withdraw or withhold life support has become heated. This is because each of the two opposing sides arguing for and against the topic feels more accurate, as they all believe they are on the same page. Each side believes their position is founded on noble morals and ethics (Keele et al., 2016). One critical aspect of end-of-life care is that it prolongs and sustains life, thereby providing opportunities for the best alternatives and, most likely, the best treatment plans. Simultaneously, religious beliefs assert that life is sacred (Keele et al., 2016). This implies that failing to save or support life is unethical. Withdrawal of life support in Mr. Martinez’s case would appear to result in premature death, which is morally wrong. Perhaps the ICU can assist Martinez in resolving his health issue. He and his family members, however, direct that the CRP be used. This could result in additional complications, which could result in additional issues affecting both family members and care providers. At this point, his life was in jeopardy due to a lack of time to make an informed decision about the fittest intervention. Ethical Principles to Follow When Determining When to Terminate Life Support Each care practitioner must have a thorough understanding of the various principles governing end-of-life decisions. Respect for the right to self-determination is one of these principles. The right to autonomy implies that the patient has a right to participate in the decision-making process regarding treatment. This principle states that patients have the right to direct their treatment or medical needs in accordance with their freedom of self-determination (Grignoli et al., 2018). As stated in this principle, in Mr. Martinez’s scenario, the healthcare facility has been directed to follow the DNR request. Beneficial principles should also be considered when providing end-of-life care. At this point, healthcare practitioners are obligated to promote and enhance the patient’s greatest good. This entails identifying and weighing the benefits and drawbacks of specific treatment decisions, particularly from the perspective of patients (Giles et al., 2018). This is demonstrated in the case presented by the caregivers’ efforts to maintain Martinez’s life through antibiotics, fluids, and oxygen. Ignoring these principles may have negative consequences for healthcare practitioners. A Vital Consideration When Considering Limiting Life Support The quality of life of patients is one of the factors that care practitioners must consider when deciding whether to limit end-of-life support. Mr. Martinez’s situation is easily remedied. Despite this, the necessary treatment could not be carried out due to his desire. Consideration of a patient’s health concerns and life quality may promote sound decision-making, thereby avoiding health complexity in the long run. While adhering to moral and ethical principles is critical, it is also necessary to consider the potential consequences of a decision. Following this, it is critical to involve the patient in a thorough informed consent process to assist the patient in making decisions (Muramoto, 2016). Thus, one recommendation for Mr. Martinez’s case is that he be informed of the potential consequences of his decision. Additionally, an ethical analysis can be conducted prior to the DNR request being accepted. To summarize, the decision to withdraw life support is complicated. The decision is influenced by religious values, customs, and individual perspectives. For instance, individuals may prefer to withdraw from life support in order to ensure a dignified and painless death. Simultaneously, individuals may wish to place themselves on life support as a result of their religious values, which suggest that life is sacred. The right to beneficence and the principle of autonomy are two ethical principles that influence the decision to withdraw life support. When making decisions about end-of-life care, it is important to consider the patient’s quality of life and health status. References C. Cano, A. Silva, A. Barboza, B. Bazzo, C. Martins, et al (2020). End-of-life issues: a conceptual framework for euthanasia, dysthanasia, and orthothanasia Bioética, 28(2), pp. 376-383. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422020282399 T. Giles, S. de Lacey, and E. Muir-Cochrane (2018). How do clinicians apply beneficence principles when deciding whether to allow or deny family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Clinical Nursing, 27(5-6), pp. 1214-1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14222 N. Grignoli, V. Di Bernardo, and R. Malacrida (2018). New perspectives on critical care decision-making in which relational autonomy is substituted for shared decision-making. Intensive Care Medicine, 22(1), pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2187-6 L. Keele, K. Meert, R. Berg, H. Dalton, C. Newth, et al (2016). Limiting and withdrawing life support in the PICU: Who is discussed with these options? Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/pcc.0000000000000614 O. Muramoto (2016). A conceptual argument for informed consent for the diagnosis of brain death. Philosophical, ethical, and humanistic considerations in medicine, 11(1), pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-016-0042-4 Assessment 3 Instructions: Should We Withhold Life Support? The Mr. Martinez Case PRINT Write a 2-3 page paper that examines the moral and ethical issues involved in making a decision regarding limiting life support.End-of-Life Issues With our framework of ethical theories and principles in hand, we begin our look at some of the critical ethical issues in our contemporary world, starting with end-of-life issues. This assessment covers ethical questions related to end-of-life care. Passive euthanasia is the removal or refusal of life-sustaining treatment. Examples of passive euthanasia include removal of a feeding tube or a ventilator, or forgoing a life-prolonging surgery. Passive euthanasia is legal in all 50 states, and the principle of autonomy gives informed patients the right to refuse any and all treatments. Patients who are unable to make such decisions in the moment (because they are unconscious, for example) might have made their intentions clear beforehand with an advance directive or similar document. Things become more complicated, however, when a patient who is unable to make treatment choices has not made his or her wishes clear, either formally in a written document, or informally in conversations with family members or friends. Another problem concerns cases in which there is disagreement about whether the treatment is sustaining the life of a person in the full sense or merely as a body that, because of severe and irreversible brain trauma, is no longer truly a living person.Active euthanasia, or assisted suicide, introduces further difficult moral questions. A patient who has a terminal illness and who has refused treatments that would merely prolong a potentially very painful and debilitating death might want the process of dying to be hastened and made less painful. The patient might want to take his or her own life before the disease reaches its horrible final stages. Should patients be legally allowed to have help in this endeavor? If suicide itself is not morally wrong, at least in cases like these, is it wrong for another person to directly help bring about the patient’s death? Is it wrong for doctors, a role we naturally associate with healing and the promotion of life, to use their medical expertise to deliberately end a patient’s life if the patient wants this?Demonstration of ProficiencyBy successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria: Competency 1: Articulate ethical issues in health care. Articulate the moral issues associated with limiting life support. Competency 2: Apply sound ethical thinking related to a health care issue. Demonstrate sound ethical thinking and relevant ethical principles when considering limiting life support. Explain important considerations that arise when contemplating limiting life support. Competency 5: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others and is consistent with health care professionals. Exhibit proficiency in clear and effective academic writing skills.Preparation Case Study: Mr. Martinez. Should Mr. Martinez be transferred to intensive care, where his respiratory failure can be treated by a ventilator, and by CPR if necessary, and his oxygen level can be monitored? What are the key ethical issues or models at play in this case study? What are the key end-of-life issues at play in this case study? How can an understanding of models and best-practice help to guide health care practitioners to make ethical and legal decisions?This media piece provides the context for this assessment; make sure you have reviewed the case study thoroughly.Additionally, it may be useful to think through the following issues as they relate to Mr. Martinez’s case:InstructionsIn a 2–3 page analysis of the case study, address the following: The patient’s directives. The patient’s quality of life. The family’s stated preferences. The moral issues associated with limiting life support. The ethical principles most relevant to reaching an ethically sound decision. Important considerations such as implications, justifications, and any conflicts of interest that might arise because of the patient’s respiratory failure.When writing your assessment submission assume that doctors cannot contact Mrs. Martinez and must make this choice on their own. To help you reach an objective, ethically sound decision, draw upon concepts and arguments from the suggested resources or your independent research. Support your response with clear, concise, and correct examples, weaving and citing the readings and media throughout your answer.Submission Requirements Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message. APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to current APA style and formatting guidelines. Length: 2–3 typed, double-spaced pages. Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point. Resources: End-of-Life Issues End-of-Life IssuesThe Suicide Plan.This video explores the clandestine world of assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in two U.S. states—Oregon and Washington—but only for individuals facing a terminal illness. Elsewhere, individuals contemplating suicide turn to friends, family members, and activist right-to-die organizations. When people choose to kill themselves, those who help them (assisters) face a range of legal consequences, so they are advised to hide evidence and tell few people about their intentions. This documentary offers a balanced, informative viewpoint about an issue few want to contemplate.Running time: 01:25:38.Think about the following questions: What are your thoughts about those individuals who were arrested for helping a parent or friend die? Though they broke the law, do you believe they did anything morally wrong?Did the film change your mind, in either direction, about laws that forbid physician-assisted suicide?What do you think of Dr. Timothy Quill’s claim in the video that there is no moral difference between a doctor removing life-sustaining treatment upon a patient’s request (which is legal) and a doctor hastening the death of a terminally ill patient who asks for such help (which is illegal in most U.S. states)? Do you agree or disagree?Should those who have a treatable illness but do not choose to go through treatment and linger be permitted to receive assistance to kill themselves?Additional End-of-Life IssuesEmanuel, L. L, Barry, M. J., Stoeckle, J. D., Ettelson, L. M., & Emanuel, E. J. (1991). Advance directives for medical care: A case for greater use. The New England Journal of Medicine, 324(13), 889-895.This seminal work examines the case for expanding the use of advanced medical directives by using hypothetical scenarios.Gedge, E., Giacomini, M., & Cook, D. (2007). Withholding and withdrawing life support in critical care settings: Ethical issues concerning consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(4), 215.More recent seminal work regarding the ethical guidelines and issues with regards to life support technology.Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Available in the courseroom via the VitalSource Bookshelf link.Chapter 7, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide,” pages 300-334. Resources: Optional Enrichment Ethical Issues: Reproductive ControlIf you would like to learn more about ethical issues surrounding reproductive control, you may want to read Optional Enrichment: Reproductive Control [DOC] for an overview of some of the ethical considerations. For further enrichment, you may wish to explore the following resources: Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Available in the courseroom via the VitalSource Bookshelf link.Chapter 4, “Reproductive Control,” pages 189-236.Chapter 5, “Abortion,” pages 237-274.Lyerly, A. D., & Rothman, B. K. (2004). Paternalism. Retrieved from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2004/02/ccas1-04…This article presents a clinical case where a physician refuses to perform a medical procedure. (Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in the AMA Journal of Ethics are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.) The case study is followed by commentaries from physicians taking different positions.Ethical Issues Surrounding Genetic ControlWe are living in a time when the pace of knowledge is outstripping our ability to come to grips with the ethical challenges presented by genetic engineering. If you would like to learn more about the current and emerging ethical issues in the rapidly changing field of genetics, and the challenges and opportunities of genetic engineering, you may want to read Optional Enrichment: Genetic Control [DOC]. For further enrichment, you may wish to explore the following resources: Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Available in the courseroom via the VitalSource Bookshelf link.Chapter 3, “Genetic Control,” pages 120-188.Sandel, M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics—The moral logic of stem-cell research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(3), 207-209.In this brief article, philosopher Michael Sandel discusses the ethical questions surrounding stem cell research. He considers several moral objections to their use, but sides with those who argue that use of embryonic stem cells is not morally wrong.A Duty Not to Reproduce? | Transcript.This video shows a discussion between a physician and expectant parents. Dr. Mendez delivers news to the expectant parents that their unborn male child has Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal and untreatable genetic disorder affecting the nervous system. Most commonly diagnosed among infants, Tay-Sachs affects the body’s inability to break down fatty substances, eventually building to toxic levels within the brain. As the disease progresses, the individual becomes blind and deaf and experiences progressive paralysis before dying around age 15.Running time: 01:44. Explanation & Answer length: 3 pages Is your assignment deadline coming soon? It is easy! Fill in the order form to provide your instructions. All our writers are professionals in their fields of study and use the widest databases, the best online libraries, and the latest periodicals and journals in order to deliver the highest quality papers written according to your requirements. Believe us, we do thorough research for every essay and we know our topics. Also, we hire many writers so that we can cover all disciplines. All our papers are written from scratch Order Now