Select and post your response on one of the following three bio-ethical issues:
Issue 1 Peter Singer : What philosophical position informs his views on those issues? Support your answers citing relevant scholarly sources (your course text may be a source). What counterargument could one make from the opposing philosophical position, and how would he/she support the "rightness" of this position?
Issue 2: "Ashley Treatment"—what bioethical issues does it raise about personhood, rights, etc. of individuals who are regarded as having severe disabilities? What family-related issues does this treatment raise? What issues does it raise regarding Ashley's QOL and/or that of individuals like Ashley who have similarly severely disabling conditions? Do parents have the right to make the kind of choices that Ashley's made? What position do you take on this issue and why? What philosophical position informs your views?
Issue 3: Terri Schiavo's Identify and contrast the philosophical positions that are taken by Terri, her husband aka legal executor of her living will, and Terri's own family—the Schindlers. What lessons about severe disability does this case bring to the fore?
First of all, reading about Peter Singer literally made me sick to my stomach! Undoubtedly,his philosophical positions as to abortion, euthanasia and infanticide are based upon utilitarianism which promotes that ethical decisions should be based upon the greatest good for the greatest number of people (McDonnell, et al, 2003). Regarding abortion, Singer states that the woman's preferment takes precedence over the fetus because it is not yet alive and has no ability to suffer or feel. I strongly disagree. I believe that every life is precious to God (see Psalms 139, Exodus 21:22-24, Acts 17:24-28) and no one has the right to destroy it. I also believe that life begins at conception. Something that is not alive cannot grow. A fetus is growing and thus is alive. I really have to wonder what happened to Singer during his lifetime to make him, in my opinion, such a heartless person. I certainly agree with Dr. Mutua that Singers views are very disturbing, especially the statement regarding his mother's life.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Issue 1:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Wikipedia entry for Peter Singer, he views on abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide are based on utilitarianism (2011). The McDonnell, Hardman, and McDonnell text discusses the fact that the needs of society are placed before the needs of the individual with regards to this philosophical position and that “the ends justify the means” (2003). The Wikipedia entry for Peter Singer stated that he believes that babies do not have ““rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”” (2011). I found it interesting in the Wikipedia entry for Peter Singer when it stated he believes that “human development is a gradual process” (2011). Personally, I disagree with Singer’s utilitarian viewpoints with regards to abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. At this point, I want to write I understand every individual in this class may not agree with me. However, I believe this is part of what is fascinating about the United States of America. We can have differing opinions, and still peacefully coexist.
One can also argue against Singer’s viewpoints, by having viewpoints which are based on the deontological philosophical position. The McDonnell et al text discusses that this specific philosophical position believes that the needs of the individual always takes precedence over the needs of society and that no single individual’s rights should be elevated, because doing this threatens the rights of other individuals (2003). As discussed in the McDonnell et al text and other elements of this course, one may believe it is necessary to advocate for individuals who cannot advocate for themselves (in this case, unborn children and infants) (2003). A question which arises as I am writing this post, is “When, in Singer’s opinion, is killing an individual wrong?” Is it when individuals reach the age of majority (18-years-old) and have complete autonomy? If this is the case, are people who kill children and youth, not guilty of murder? I can only imagine what would have happened in the Casey Anthony trail, if her defense had used this argument to claim she had the right to kill her daughter, because the toddler was not completely self-autonomous. It is important to note, at this point, that I am not writing that Casey murdered her daughter. I believe it is up to each individual to decide this for themselves. One could also find Singer’s views about fetuses not being human, because they do not want to live ridiculous. During one undergraduate course I took, my class watched a video depicting the ultrasound of an abortion. During the process, the fetus unsuccessfully tried to get away from the suction tube. One can only imagine how this can be anything, but the fetus wanting to live. As mentioned earlier, according to Singer, this is an attribute an individual must have to be considered human. In this specific instance, is Singer contradicting what he believes?
Wow, I don’t even know where to begin to express my disgust for Peter Singer. Had doctors known the kind of garbage he was going to promote one day, they may have decided to use the utilitarianism approach with him as an infant (I’m being facetious of course). His statement about killing newborns not being equivalent to killing a person was shocking. What is a newborn if it is not a person? His views are likely based on issues of critically ill infants surviving at a rate of nearly 90 percent as opposed to a decade ago (McDonnell et al, 2003). The long-term cost of saving the lives of these infants, who may have severe problems, as they grow older, is very high. No matter what the reason behind his philosophical position, killing babies is wrong under any circumstances. My counterargument is simple, I live by the Bible and it is commanded of God that we shall not kill (Exodus 20:13). I realize that for some people that may not be sufficient so let me give another example. I have a friend named Clay. He was born with no arms or legs. Had Peter Singer been around when he was born, he would have probably told the doctors and Clay’s parents that he should not be saved. Here is a link to one of many video clips featuring Clay’s life: http://youtu.be/glrU4JKV1SI if it will not load, just go to YouTube and search for Clay Dyer.
ReplyDeleteThe Ashley Treatment entry made complete sense to me. She will never have an intimate relationship so why put her though the cramps and unnecessary biological processes of a woman? Her parents love her dearly and wanted to give her a better quality of life than she would have had otherwise. If Ashley had been able to voice her opinions and tell her parents her wants and desires, I would have disagreed with the decision to have all of the surgeries performed on her. Beyond contrary belief, everyone’s quality of life is not dependent on the ability to have children. I don’t have them and I consider my life very fulfilling.
I remember the Terri Schiavo case and I have never understood why the courts didn’t let her parents become her guardians and keep her alive. I am sure they would have been willing to give her husband any life insurance money when the time came in return for being able to keep her alive. Concerning the issue of cost, I would like to say that I had much rather pay to keep an innocent woman alive than for my tax dollars to keep murders and rapists alive. I truly believe what they did to Terri was murder. Just because the court system gave her husband permission to kill her does not make it right.
Ashley's treatment was a very interesting read and I questioned her quality of life when I first started reading it and how they mentioned the "Ashley Pillow" in the article. But as I read more I thought about it more and it changed my opinion. The bioehtical issue that would be reaised are does she have a say? Even though she is incapable of making the decision, it is her body shouldn't she have a say? I think after thinking about this issue, I believe that her parents were right on this decision. Ashley does not have the mental understanding of what is going on with her body to make the decision. In that case, her parents are the ones to have a say as to what happens to her. While reading it, it seemed painful but I don't think her quality of life was degraded, but I think it was improved. She doesn't have to deal with period of the pains that come with it. (Most of us females understand the pains and the issues of periods). Also, her parents are able to take better care of her and still be able to pick her up and do anything they need to without hurting themselves.
ReplyDeleteNow, this doesn't mean every person who has a severe disability like this should go through this. If they have the mental capacity to understand then they should have a say. With Ashley though, she will always be at the infant mentality. I think the philosophical position I take is Deontological. Society did not play a part in her parents decision, but they did what was best for Ashley and themselves.
Christy,
ReplyDeleteI always find it fascinating to discover what other individuals think about various topics. I admire your willingness to openly discuss your views on the issue of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. I also appreciate the fact that you referenced the Holy Bible. You are one of the few individuals (I have known during my college career) who has done this, which takes courage. In one of the lectures for this course, it was mentioned that faith plays an important role in our personal philosophy about various subjects. All too often, I believe people are afraid to voice their views about matters of faith. Someone once told me to only voice my opinions, if I am truly passionate about something. I can honestly write that you are passionate about these issues. As you, my opinions differ about what constitutes a human life differs from Peter Singer’s. I, too, was shocked about what he stated about his mother and possibly taking steps to end her life. I could never imagine doing this to either of my parents. This being written, it would be difficult to label Singer as a hypocrite; at least he is consistent with his beliefs. I can think of various public figures who ardently support beliefs in public, but practice completely opposite beliefs in private.
Jonathan Christian
Amber,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. I also found the reading about the Ashley Treatment to be interesting. I understand why you agree with this treatment. I also understand why her parents arrived at the decision to keep her body from developing and growing to an adult size. In the reading, it stated that they wanted to be able to care for their daughter as long as possible. Preventing her body from developing helped ensure it would be easier for them to care for their daughter. Staying with her family bettered Ashley’s quality of life. That being written, I do not think I would make the same decision if I had a daughter. Keeping her in a pseudo childhood would limit her life experiences. It would always haunt me that I did not allow her to experience life to the fullest extent possible. Even though she might seem serene about what happened (due to her condition), I would never be able to truly know what she actually wanted to take place. Parenting is tough; it is filled with hard decisions to make and there are many gray areas.
Jonathan Christian
After reading through Peter Singer’s views on abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide I was absolutely repulsed. Singer’s utilitarian view on life is by far the most extreme in my own personal opinion. The fact that he would end his own mother’s life is what shocked me the most. I do understand the fact that it is emotionally challenging and very expensive to keep someone alive who is diagnosed with an illness such as Alzheimers and using these costly procedures, medications, etc. doesn’t always benefit the “greatest good for the greatest number of people” (McDonnell, et al, 2003). However, who are we to choose whether one lives or dies? This is not Germany circa World War II where the Nazis had the power to choose who is worthy of living. Perhaps Singer and Hitler would have been best of friends? Singer’s views on infanticide also shocked me. I personally believe that a child’s life begins the moment he or she is conceived. If a fetus has a heartbeat isn’t it technically alive? His argument made about preferences of life and how the fetus has yet to experience what he or she prefers in life is absolutely absurd. There were a few things I knew at birth right away that I knew I would prefer in life, for example Alabama football rather than “that other school in Alabama.” However, my preferences have changed throughout life based on experiences, relationships, and other life changing events. At birth I didn’t know I would prefer to teach rather than work in public relations. Why should we be allowed to stop that fetus from experiencing these types of things? The website below argues that we should not discriminate an unborn fetus based solely upon their size, level of development, environment, and dependency. Check it out! I completely agree with their counterargument to abortion. Their argument made on level of development definitely speaks to us as educators!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/
Issue 3
ReplyDeleteThe Terri Schiavo case has always been very interesting to me. As I was reading the review of the case, I began to think back on when I first heard about the case. I was in high school, and I feel I was very ignorant of the ways of the world! I remember thinking I would never want them to pull me off of a machine and I can’t believe her husband is doing that. However, this all comes back to the quality of life issue. What one person views as quality of life is not the same to another. Terri Schiavo has no living will; however, it was stated by her husband that she would have not wanted to live like that. On the other hand, her parents stated that she was a Catholic and would never agree with euthanasia. Schiavo’s husband wanted a DNR order and wanted to remove her feeding tube because he felt that there was little to no chance that she would ever recover from her vegetative state. Her parents did not want to remove the feeding tube because they felt that Terri would not have wanted that and wanted to keep their daughter alive. I know that if it was me, my parents would do anything that they could to keep me alive. To them, the best quality to life for me is to simply be breathing. However, I do not feel the same as I did in high school. I understand the bigger issues at hand here. If there was so chance that she would ever recover from a vegetative state, then in my opinion she had no quality of life. Now, the key word there is “my opinion.” No one knew what Terri wanted because she had no living will. They assumed what was best for her, but no one really knew. This raises the question “What is quality of life?” It is different for everyone, and the only person that knows the answer to this question is that individual. Special educators need to discuss with their severe and profound students what their idea of quality of life is. Is their idea of quality of life living in an institution with little to no interaction with the outside world in order to make it easy on them? Or, is their idea of quality of life working a part time job just to make ends meet so that they have interaction with the outside world? Obviously, neither one of the scenarios are desirable. However, the point I am making is that the only person who can decide what actual quality is is that person. Parents may think that they have the child’s best interest in mind just as Terri Schiavo’s parents did. However, the only person who knows for sure is Terri herself. In this case, they could not ask her what she wanted. Therefore, they had to assume what was best. We have the opportunity to help our students decide for their selves.
Jonathon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that "Keeping her in a pseudo childhood would limit her life experiences." Parents of children with severe disabilities that I know of at the high school I teach at and at the ones I did obervations at want their children to take part in "noraml" activities such as dating in some form, even the ones with very severe and profound needs. Some parents have even talked about marriage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmber,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with her parents actions. Their actions to me seem to be a regression to the days of mandatory sterilization of individuals with disabilities. If she could speak for herself she might like to grow taller and have a womanly shape as opposed to a child like one. Yes, I am a woman and am very aware of pain and period issues. If I were given a choice to stay a child physically or grow into a woman(for better or for worse), I would still choose womanhood.
I am not Ashley's parents and I might have a very different perspective if I were. My perspective is that of a woman who is a teacher of adolescents with mild and of adolescents with severe and profound disabilities. Please forgive any harsh statements, but I was deeply angered for Ashley when I read the article. If she did not have a disability her parents would not be having her breast and ovaries removed and growth stopped. Developing a feminine shape and beginning menstruation is part of being a woman. In many cultures it is an event to be celebrated. The fact that she began showing signs of puberty at such a young age is disturbing; however, is there not a less invasive way of postponing the advancement of it? I feel it is dangerous to justify her parents actions; where would we draw a line? One might argue that other individuals with somewhat milder, but still severe disabilities should under go the same treatment "for their good." How can they be certain she has the mental capacity of an infant? She cannot speak for herself. I think my perspective is deontological.
ReplyDeleteGinger,
ReplyDeleteI understand your view point on the Ashley treatment. If she did not have a disability she could make a decision on her own correct? She would be able to grow into a woman. But when your brain is staying as an infant, she cannot comprehend what is going on with her body and nor does she know how to take care of herself. I think that probably when it happened the doctors might have not known that much about this disease. But Ashley does not have the mental capacity to make the decision. Also, in the article they talked about how she stayed where you put her. When someone is an infant, such as a newborn, you put them somewhere and they tend to stay there. I think those are actions that showed that she did not have the mental capacity. Are there some students with severe disabilities that could probably speak for themselves if this were to happen, yes. I think we need to remember that her disease is what held her back from having a say in the matter.
If I was at the mental capacity of an infant, I would not want to be in womanhood. I think that being the child would be the right choice. Do I think the surgeries might have been invasive, yes, but that doesn't mean her quality of life is down. I don't understand why they took her apendix out but I guess it had to do something with puberty.
I think the quality of life issue is something that we don't talk about and that obviously brings up many different view points.
Brandi,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement"We have the opportunity to help our students decide for their selves." in regardles to quality of life. Choice is extremely empowering. As, teachers, I feel one major part of our job is empowering students to make choices for themselves.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post and I like it. I skimmed over the Singer article, but I am amazed at what he would think. I agree with you that a fetus is alive when it is concieved and I believe that we should give it an opportunity to make a decision. I think that all the issues out there that is the biggest with quality of life that will always be big is the abortion issue. Abortion will always be hard for people to understand and for people to agree on. I also agree that just because someone has a disease that hurts their brain and they are slipping away does not mean that we can kill them off. I believe that with diseases like this, we can try to slow down the process and enjoy the moments we have with them.
Amber,
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly from the reading her removing her appendix was also a preventative measure. They said that because she could not voice that she experienced pain. A bad appendix could become deadly to her before it was diagosed.
Farah,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the parents were only looking out for Ashley’s best interest by preventing the discomforts associated with being a woman. Ashley will never be able to have a “normal” sex life or be intimate with anyone else so why should she have to go through these pains. However, I found myself bouncing back and forth on whether or not this is right or wrong. I understand that the parents only wanted what is best for Ashley in their eyes but it almost seems to me that these doctors were attempting to stop human nature. I believe if I was put in Ashley’s parents shoes I would have done the same thing. With that being said, it almost seems as though we are getting ahead of ourselves in medical advances. I wish that doctors took into consideration the issues of these breakthroughs before putting them into practice.
Christy,
ReplyDeleteYou and I have similar views on when life begins- at conception. As noted in my post, the website link provides a very interesting argument against abortion. It too suggests that just because a fetus is small in size, it does not mean it is not alive or cannot grow into a successful human being. I believe these ethicists should take into consideration the fact that just because the fetus is not fully developed doesn’t mean they should be susceptible to murder. If this was the case what would be the purpose of schools? As educators, we see the developmental differences between a student in first grade and sixth grade. So do first graders deserve not to live because they are not as developmentally mature as an older child? Then eventually wouldn’t the human population become extinct because reproduction would have to come to a stop if the level of development meant a fetus wasn’t alive?
I am sure Ashley's parents had her best interests at heart and I feel guilty for thinking otherwise;however, I still agree with the position of Jonathon's post. I do not think I would have made the same decision, but it was her parent's right to decide not mine.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the different issues to choose from, I instantly knew that I wanted to read about Peter Singer. I took a Medical Ethics course at the University of Alabama in 2007 and it intrigued me very much. When I started reading about Singer's views, I instantly remembered talking about utilitarianism. With that being said, I am probably going to say something controversial because I am going to discuss his views a little different from everyone else. Let me first start by saying I am not saying I am pro-Singer views. Instead, I question them, and all views. I say this because with some of these topics, you aren't able to take into account the wants of the person who is being debated about. For example, if you take the Terry Schiavo case, at the moment when the decision to "pull the plug" was being made, she couldn't say what SHE wanted. So, does this mean some decisions are being made with the interest of the person at the center of the topic, or the in the interest of the others involved? When the Schiavo case was going on, I remember my mother telling me that she would want me to let her pass away, because she wouldn't want me to have to take care of her while she is permanently unresponsive. She was thinking about my family, not herself. So, when I read about Singer's views, they make me question instead of getting angry. If we are going to be against people with these kind of views, what can we do to better educate people at the center of the decisions being made? For instance, if we are speaking on abortion, how can we better educate women and men about other options other than abortion? What about ways to have safer relations? (not sure I can say the other word on here...) When it comes to euthanasia, you can enounter people with depression, what can we do to see them there is a way out of it and that death is not the way? What can we do to make people with disabilities have a better life?
ReplyDeleteThis may not be the direction in which I was supposed to go with the prompt, but when reading about Singer, that's all I could think about. So, my question is what do y'all think we can do to better educate ourselves and others on these type of positions?
Brandi, I completely agree with being naive when the Schiavo case was being introduced. I diddn't completely comprehend what was going on. I think that what I take away as being most important from it is that we need to make sure that we have our opinions voiced to our family and friends, as well as having them written down with a third outside party. I know many believe that others shouldn't have a say whether a person dies, so I think that having a living will will help. Then again, you have the issue of whether or not the person was capable of making their decisions to begin with. QOL is a very complicated subject in my opinion. I think that is it something that should be continually studied in order to better our understanding of decisions that may have to be made in the future.
ReplyDeleteKimberly, Amber and everyone,
ReplyDeleteI agree QOL is a complicated reoccuring theme and something we should research and talk about more often. I enjoyed everyone's posts. Thanks.
Farah,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your post regarding the Ashley treatment. I believe the parents decisions furthered her QOL by helping to make her more comfortable. I also believe the surgeries will enable the parents to care for her longer, thus keeping her out of an institution.
Several people commented on the Schiavo case. Having a son, my heart goes out to Terri's parents. With or without a living will, I would never want to give up hope. Miracles do happen and God is the ultimate Healer. To me, withholding nutrition is a cruel way to die. I can't help but to think that Terri was in pain and suffered. I agree with Farah that it seems like murder. If her husband was moving on with his life, why would he care if her parents were left to take care of Terri? I feel he was just wanting some life insurance money. It is also very strange that the autopsy report showed no sign of a heart attack.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thanks Jonathan for the comment and as for Casey Anthony, I feel the jury system let us down.
I agree. The Terry Shaivo's case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court and it just like Dr. Kovorkian before her, it brought up the right-to-die issue. Dr. Kovorkian's paitents could request this be done. However, in Shaivo's case, she couldn't speak for herself. An issue was whether the husband's granted motions and later court findings to forgo further life-prolonging procedures or life support treatment for Terri, who was diagnosed by doctors as being in a persistent vegetative state, would be carried out. It's an issue I hope to never encounter, if I did unfortunately, then I am not sure what decision I would make.
ReplyDeleteKimberly I do agree with you. I loved your post. You did have a different outlook, but I think it was needed. What can we do to provide an intervention to the problem at hand? I really believe this is what you were saying overall. We are so quick to judge other people's decisions in regards to if their decisions were ethical or not. Maybe they feel like there is no other way. What have we done to inform them that there is another way? There are so many resources out there, but so many people do not know how to access these resources. We as citizens need to make sure that individuals facing an ethical crisis or situation like the three topics that we have read, have been educated and given the opportunity to explore other options before making these type of decisions.
ReplyDeleteLoved your post Brandi. Two things stuck out to me in your post. One was the statement, "My parents would have fought hard for me to live and the best quality of life for them would be to keep me breathing". You also stated, "The meaning for quality of life differs, depending on that individual". This is so true to me. In the Shiavo case, she didn't have a living will so she was the only person who could have truly determined what she wanted to happen. Sometimes as parents you only think about saving your child and not giving up on your child. As a parent you feel that you are never suppose to give up. This pose a question. Are some parents really thinking about the quality of life of their child, or are they being selfish because they just want to be able to continue to see their child alive? I do agree that only that individual can determine their own quality of life. Very nice post once again. Also, who knows what she has probably expressed to her husband several times in regards to this issue, but in the medical field we always say, "If it's not documented it didn't happen".
ReplyDeleteThe reading that really hit home for me was the Ashley Treatment. As an occupational therapist working with individuals with mild to severe disabilities, I think I may look at this issue a little differently than some people. The main issue that was raised is that Ashley’s parents made biological decisions in regards to her physical growth, and sexual maturation. Procedures that were performed include growth attenuation, hysterectomy, bilateral breast bud removal and an appendectomy. The bioethical issues surfaced because some do not agree that it should have been the parent’s decision to alter what will happen to a child naturally in regards to maturation. The child did not have a say so, or would anyone ever really know if this child wanted the procedures or not. Another issue is that this robs the child of her rights because she is severely disabled. Also, were the parents being selfish, thinking only of themselves when making the decisions?
ReplyDeleteI understand in the reading that it was felt that this should have been handled in the courts before making decisions of this nature. I really have to say that I agree with the parents. Working in the medical field and understanding the diagnosis static encephalopathy, this child does not have the cognitive or intellectual capabilities to make any sound decisions. She doesn’t even have the mobility, or dexterity capabilities to perform volitional movement to initiate or perform tasks. This child is completely immobile. Her parents are her primary caregivers and they want to take care of her. Do you not know that there are so many children that are institutionalized because their parents haven’t even tried to take care of them? This child is getting love and support from her parents. I can understand that the procedures seem evasive but it is easy for someone to judge who has not experienced the situation, or one that is similar. When a person is immobile they are very likely to get bedsores, achy joints and muscle contractures. They have to be turned several times a day and stretched. Therefore it would make it easier on the family and Ashley to remain a smaller size. Ashley is not cognitively competent to be able to take care of a child, or to be able to have a life with a significant other. So why put her through more pain of having a cycle or the possibility of having large breasts when she already probably suffers from muscular atrophy. This is subjecting her to more pain. Also some may think the appendectomy is a little too much but I can understand the parents in regards to heading off an issue that possibly can occur.
Ashley already has a lot to deal with so her parents wanted to maintain the quality of life that she already has. They did not want her to experience more pain or problems if it could be avoided, and also if she is easier to maneuver or handle then she will get better care and a better quality of life; and quality of life for Ashley could be enjoying looking at her parents and experiencing the love they give her with no additional pain or problems. No Ashley can not express what is quality of life for her, but she was born this way, therefore she only knows what she has experienced so why experience worse if it can be avoided. Philosophically, I look at the way we OT’s look at things. We look at occupation. We refer to occupation as something that is meaningful and purposeful to that individual. Being able to participate in your occupation gives you quality of life. In Ashley’s case I feel that her occupation is being a daughter that her parents take pride in taking care of. Why make her occupation harder to fulfill, when possible obstacles can be avoided? I do believe that the parents could have handled the situation better in regards to legal issues, but I do believe everything was done for the best interest of the child and for that I am behind them one hundred percent.
Timothy, that is exactly what I was trying to say! Thanks so much for helping clear that up :) Sometimes when I talk, it makes more sense in my head than to other people. haha :)
ReplyDeleteKim,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was very interesting. I did not choose that case, but I can see why you did! You seem to feel very passionately about it, and I can feel that it your post! I agree with you. When these decisions are made, they are not made in the best interest of the person unless there is a specific living will with their wishes written out. The statements you made really caught my attention because of recent events that have happened in my life. I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you by saying that we should better educate people so that these types of situations can be avoided. I could definitely see the benefits in educating a person on all of their options, and then asking them to make a living will so that their wishes are known in times of trouble.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYour post was very interesting. I was not familiar with this case prior to this course. I can definitely see your point. The parents made the decision that was in the best interest of the entire family. When thinking about quality of life you have to think about EVERYONE involved. The parents quality of life would have been affected as well as the Ashley`s had the parents chose a different option. Some are quick to judge, but they are not thinking about all parties involved.
Amber,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you mentioned in your post about Ashley not having the ability to make her own decisions about biological issues taking place within her body. If she had been able to understand their intentions and oppose them, I would have definitely disagreed with them. As parents and adults, we must do what all we can to insure the comfort and safety of children. I believe her parents loved her enough to make the best possible decision for her.
Brandi,
ReplyDeleteI remember the Terri Shiavo case as well. The thing that most concerned me about her husband wanting to remove her feeding tube is that he had another woman waiting for him. I always found myself wondering if he was removing the tube for her sake or for his own. I guess a lesson we can all learn from her case is that it is very important that we all draw up a living will so in the unfortunate case that we ever end up needing one, there will be no question as to what we would want.