Blog 5

The movie that we watched in class was truly interesting. While it was sad, I don’t think I would have ever been able to grasp the concept of assisted suicide without seeing it. I have a much greater understanding of the process that takes place. It is fascinating that there are only a few countries that allow assisted suicide to take place.

            I had a hard time putting myself in a position of wanting to end my life. Prior to this movie, I thought that there would be no way I would want to purposely end my life. I have always thought that suicide is one of most selfish things a human can do. It affects many people. While any death affects people in negative ways, it is hard to know that people can be so unhappy that they have to end their lives. Friends and family can spend their entire lives blaming themselves for that person’s death. While I always knew assisted suicide was different, I still saw it as something that can hurt other people.

             The video we watched in class really changed my mind. I liked how the man compared it too a premature baby that was born and how without the help of technology, that baby would pass away so we are choosing that the child lives instead of putting in it God’s hands. We are choosing the fate of the child. The man explains it is the same with death. Everyone should be able to choose to end their lives sooner when they have a terminal illness. What really stuck with me was when he said that either he dies while he is happy and not in pain or he suffers than passes away; either way he dies.

            What I had a hard time with was the fact that he had to hurry up and go through with the processes because he had to be able to swallow it himself. Once he was unable to swallow, he would loose the opportunity to do it. While this makes sense because if someone else did it would be murder, I think it is hard to end your life early because you don’t know when you will loose your ability to go through the processes yourself.  In the end as much as I think it would be a hard decision the film convinced me that it is a decision people should get to make.  

Blog # 4

             What I found most interesting after class this week was all the immoral research that has occurred. I found it fascinating how so many terrible things had happened in the past that I had never even heard of before. Not only did I find it interesting I also couldn’t believe how immoral these experiments were. It seemed to me like they were horror movies that were just made up to scare people.

The Nazi experiments seemed the most horrible to me. The people had no rights. I don’t know how someone could treat another human being in that way. They had to know at some level that what they were doing was morally wrong. Were moral rights and treatments of people different back then? Were they taught that if people were a different race or religion they didn’t have the same feelings?

Another experiment that was interesting to me was the Tuskegee syphilis. This study was morally and ethically wrong. People were just being used. They had no idea what they were being infected with. They just thought that they were being treated for “bad Blood.” They were also told if they participated they would be given free medical care but they didn't have any idea what the trade off was.

After learning about these cases I did wonder how different our knowledge of medicine would have been without them. I don’t think if you had told people the truth they would have ever volunteered to be part of the Tuskegee syphilis so would we know what we do know if that event hadn’t happened. However, let me be perfectly clear that even though the research did benefit our society, it was morally and ethically wrong and should never have been done.

Blog # 3

The conclusion in the Cosmetic Surgery section of the class notes states:

• Due to questionable and subjective benefit, is solidly a peripheral practice.

• Advertising crosses the line into unethical behavior.

• Therefore, cosmetic surgery, as it is practiced now, goes against and even threatens to erode the internal morality of medicine.

I would agree with the first statement, which states that cosmetic surgery is a peripheral practice. A peripheral practice implies that within the type of practice, all of the surgeries as a whole are not either medical or non-medical. While some procedures would definitely be defined as medically necessary, others would fall under elective surgery that has no medical need. I think cosmetic surgery falls clearly within this definition.

However, I disagree with the second statement. I don't think that advertising for cosmetic surgery by definition crosses a line into unethical behavior. It okay for cosmetic surgeons to advertise in an attempt to explain the reasoning and background, to explain what surgeries they perform, and to get their name out there.  Many practices advertise. I have seen billboard for hospitals on the highway all the time. But there can be unethical advertising in any medical profession. An emergency room could advertise that at the first sign of feeling poorly you should rush to the ER. That would be unethical. The same hold true for cosmetic surgery. Advertising to promote cosmetic surgery in general is fine but what we watched in class I thought was ethically wrong. 

So, if there is a way to advertise that is not crossing a line, you can no longer say that as a whole, cosmetic surgery goes against or threatens to erode the internal morality of medicine. The way some cosmetic surgeons advertise or run their practice would definitely erode the morality of medicine while others do not do so. So over all I don’t agree with the third bullet point. 

Difference Vs. Disability

I found the discussion about whether having deaf children receive implants when they are born is the right decision or not. In the beginning of class, my first instinct was to question why a parents wouldn't want their children to have the ability to hear if they were given that opportunity. As class continued, I realized that most of the time even if children or young adults have the choice, they will not choose to have this procedure done. This forces us to think about who is to judge what the norm is for people. I liked how the video we watched in class said that what if I were to walk into a room of all deaf people, I would be the one out of place because I would not be able to follow the conversation. This calls up the question difference and disability. If it's a true disability and there is a fix for it, that would be an easier decision. But if it's just a difference, then what? Sometimes we can wait for the children to grow up to make decisions about medical procedures, but sometimes it is necessary to make them earlier. It is a tough call to decide if someone's differences qualify as disability or not.
This discussion made me think about the larger concept of one person making a decision for another person and how that would be more difficult than making a decision for yourself. If I had to choose whether to have a medical procedure for myself, I would do all the research, ask a lot of questions, talk to people who have chosen the procedure and to people who have chosen not to have it. I would make the best decision I could, and then I would live with the consequences. But to have the responsibility to make that kind of decision for another person would be hard. I would do all the same things in making the decision, but because it wouldn't be ME who has to live with the consequences but rather someone else, it would be much harder. That person would have different opinions and life experiences that might make a decision that I would be happy with something that he or she would not be happy with.
Parents have to make a lot of decisions for their children: whether to immunize; what schools to attend; whether to raise them in a small town or a big city, etc. Those decisions alone would be difficult. But to have to choose about having a medical procedure that will alter the course of their kid's life would be really hard. I suppose the best way to do it is to apply the same method you would use for making your own decision...get as much information from as many sources as possible, especially from people who are in the specific situation as the child, and then decide.

Blog 1

I found it interesting to see the changes that were made between the Hippocratic Oath and the Modern Oath. There are elements that stayed the same, and changes that were made. It was interesting to see the Modern Oath and the Hippocratic Oath next to each other to be able to compare those changes.

What jumps out the most is the removal of the line stating that a doctor will not give “a deadly drug to anyone who asks for it,” nor give “a women an abortive remedy.” I understand by removing this anyone who is taking the modern oath could do so while believing that abortion and euthanasia are options that should be available. This made me wonder what happens in the case where someone who believes in euthanasia or abortion graduates from a medical school that uses the Hippocratic Oath. What are the ethical ramifications for people who take an oath that they know they are going to break? If this is an ever an issue within a schools, I wonder if they give any options to students. Those are just some questions that I had after learning about the Hippocratic Oath.

Another change that is made from the Hippocratic Oath to the Modern Oath is the part about treating the whole person. I like the inclusion of that part to the Modern Oath because they aren’t just treating the illness but every aspect of the person.  The same medical condition in two different people might require different treatments depending on the other aspects of their lives.

 Something that caught my eye in the original oath was the mention of a doctor going to someone’s house. House calls are a thing of the past. All I know about house calls are what my mother has told me about when she was little!