We can work on Life-Sustaining Measures

1.How do you feel about the use of life-sustaining measures in the face of terminal illness? Examples: Permanent coma? Irreversible chronic illness, such as Alzheimerâs disease? Debilitating Stroke? How do you feel about particular medical procedures? Examples: mechanical breathing (respirator), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), artificial nutrition and hydration, hospital intensive care, pain relief medication, chemo orRead more about We can work on Life-Sustaining Measures[…]

We can work on Law and Ethical Reasoning Name of Student Institutional Affiliation Law and Ethical Reasoning Living a will provide people with the opportunity to state their preferences about the type of medical treatment they can receive if they are unable to give informed consent (Rao, 2000). The living wills are useful in any case where the patient cannot state their medical choices. In a large number of states, pregnant women do not have equal right as other people to create and adhere to a living will. The justification for the exclusion of pregnant women is that they may not have considered the effects of their choices during pregnancy. These statutes claim to protect women who would be devastated to find out that the doctor continued with a life-ending treatment while in fact, she would have chosen to continue with life-sustaining treatment to give the fetus an opportunity to grow. Living wills for pregnant women are heavily influenced by the politics surrounding abortion. Most state legislatures have a clause to sidestep the living will as it is only logical to protect the life of the unborn baby by giving the incapacitated pregnant woman life-sustaining treatment. However, this decision does not consider that forcing medical care on the pregnant patient violates her autonomy as a woman. The pregnancy exemption laws impermissibly restrict the woman’s right to refuse unwanted medical intervention as well as their right to abortion. These exemptions also infringe on the pregnant woman’s ability to control their end of life healthcare, more commonly known as the “right to die” (Villarreal, 2018). In most cases, the illness or accident that incapacitates a pregnant woman also jeopardizes the health and survival of the fetus. Therefore, continuing the pregnancy is often futile. Maintaining a woman on life support is harmful to the fetus because ventilators and catheters often cause an infection that further jeopardizes the development of the fetus. The exemption of a pregnant woman from the right to enact a living will do not allow for the consideration of the pregnant woman’s pain, the growth of the unborn baby or the prognosis of the unborn baby (Villarreal, 2018). Pregnancy exemptions to living wills are unconstitutional, not only because they create an undue burden on the woman’s right to have an abortion before the fetus is viable but also because the state’s interest in the prospective life of the unborn baby cannot overrule a woman’s right to refuse medical care. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court stated that women maintained the right to terminate a pregnancy before it was viable (Villarreal, 2018). However, the state’s interest in life would be allowed to proceed only if the restriction on the woman’s right to choose does not place an undue burden on the woman. If the woman is incapacitated due to injury or illness, continuing the pregnancy infringes on their right to choose by placing an undue burden on the woman (Epstein & Walker, 2013). Most states with the exemptions on pregnancy women coerce women into accepting unwanted medical care if it is possible that the fetus will grow to pave way for “live birth”; a standard that is vague and medically uncertain and therefore places an undue burden on the rights of women to abortion. In In re Quinlan, the court ruled that the individual’s right to privacy also includes the right to decline from unwanted medical care as well as the right to abortion (Rao, 2000). The ruling found that the state cannot compel unwanted medical care on people that have expressed their wish to stop life-sustaining medical care to medical professionals and others through the healthcare power of an attorney. This ruling should take precedence when a pregnant woman is incapacitated. The state’s interest in human life should not outweigh the person’s right to refuse unwanted medical care. Therefore, the state’s interest should not justify the violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy notwithstanding how far along she is in the pregnancy (Epstein & Walker, 2013). In my opinion, society should choose to maintain the woman’s autonomy over her body, above all else. If the patient is incapacitated with no signs of recovery, I will opt to discontinue treatment. Continuing to put a woman such as nancy under medical care would place a burden on her dying body to support a fetus. It would also lengthen the suffering of the patient. The purpose of medical care is to alleviate suffering not to increase it. Also, continuing to give medical care does not guarantee the survival of the fetus. It may also lead to the birth of an infant with severe defects. This infant would then begin a life with difficulties, and the chances of their survival would be minimized due to the lack of a mother. Continuing medical care also places financial stress on the family as well as the healthcare providers. Even though theoretically, the patients financial status should not determine the level of care they receive, in reality, it is among the most crucial factors in determining a patient’s access to healthcare. Therefore, society should consider the financial implications too. References Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2013). Constitutional Law: Rights. Sage. Rao, R. (2000). Property, privacy, and the human body. BUL rev., 80, 359. Villarreal, E. (2018). Pregnancy and Living Wills: A Behavioral Economic Analysis. Yale LJF, 128, 1052.

Law and Ethical Reasoning Name of Student Institutional Affiliation Law and Ethical Reasoning Living a will provide people with the opportunity to state their preferences about the type of medical treatment they can receive if they are unable to give informed consent (Rao, 2000). The living wills are useful in any case where the patientRead more about We can work on Law and Ethical Reasoning Name of Student Institutional Affiliation Law and Ethical Reasoning Living a will provide people with the opportunity to state their preferences about the type of medical treatment they can receive if they are unable to give informed consent (Rao, 2000). The living wills are useful in any case where the patient cannot state their medical choices. In a large number of states, pregnant women do not have equal right as other people to create and adhere to a living will. The justification for the exclusion of pregnant women is that they may not have considered the effects of their choices during pregnancy. These statutes claim to protect women who would be devastated to find out that the doctor continued with a life-ending treatment while in fact, she would have chosen to continue with life-sustaining treatment to give the fetus an opportunity to grow. Living wills for pregnant women are heavily influenced by the politics surrounding abortion. Most state legislatures have a clause to sidestep the living will as it is only logical to protect the life of the unborn baby by giving the incapacitated pregnant woman life-sustaining treatment. However, this decision does not consider that forcing medical care on the pregnant patient violates her autonomy as a woman. The pregnancy exemption laws impermissibly restrict the woman’s right to refuse unwanted medical intervention as well as their right to abortion. These exemptions also infringe on the pregnant woman’s ability to control their end of life healthcare, more commonly known as the “right to die” (Villarreal, 2018). In most cases, the illness or accident that incapacitates a pregnant woman also jeopardizes the health and survival of the fetus. Therefore, continuing the pregnancy is often futile. Maintaining a woman on life support is harmful to the fetus because ventilators and catheters often cause an infection that further jeopardizes the development of the fetus. The exemption of a pregnant woman from the right to enact a living will do not allow for the consideration of the pregnant woman’s pain, the growth of the unborn baby or the prognosis of the unborn baby (Villarreal, 2018). Pregnancy exemptions to living wills are unconstitutional, not only because they create an undue burden on the woman’s right to have an abortion before the fetus is viable but also because the state’s interest in the prospective life of the unborn baby cannot overrule a woman’s right to refuse medical care. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court stated that women maintained the right to terminate a pregnancy before it was viable (Villarreal, 2018). However, the state’s interest in life would be allowed to proceed only if the restriction on the woman’s right to choose does not place an undue burden on the woman. If the woman is incapacitated due to injury or illness, continuing the pregnancy infringes on their right to choose by placing an undue burden on the woman (Epstein & Walker, 2013). Most states with the exemptions on pregnancy women coerce women into accepting unwanted medical care if it is possible that the fetus will grow to pave way for “live birth”; a standard that is vague and medically uncertain and therefore places an undue burden on the rights of women to abortion. In In re Quinlan, the court ruled that the individual’s right to privacy also includes the right to decline from unwanted medical care as well as the right to abortion (Rao, 2000). The ruling found that the state cannot compel unwanted medical care on people that have expressed their wish to stop life-sustaining medical care to medical professionals and others through the healthcare power of an attorney. This ruling should take precedence when a pregnant woman is incapacitated. The state’s interest in human life should not outweigh the person’s right to refuse unwanted medical care. Therefore, the state’s interest should not justify the violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy notwithstanding how far along she is in the pregnancy (Epstein & Walker, 2013). In my opinion, society should choose to maintain the woman’s autonomy over her body, above all else. If the patient is incapacitated with no signs of recovery, I will opt to discontinue treatment. Continuing to put a woman such as nancy under medical care would place a burden on her dying body to support a fetus. It would also lengthen the suffering of the patient. The purpose of medical care is to alleviate suffering not to increase it. Also, continuing to give medical care does not guarantee the survival of the fetus. It may also lead to the birth of an infant with severe defects. This infant would then begin a life with difficulties, and the chances of their survival would be minimized due to the lack of a mother. Continuing medical care also places financial stress on the family as well as the healthcare providers. Even though theoretically, the patients financial status should not determine the level of care they receive, in reality, it is among the most crucial factors in determining a patient’s access to healthcare. Therefore, society should consider the financial implications too. References Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2013). Constitutional Law: Rights. Sage. Rao, R. (2000). Property, privacy, and the human body. BUL rev., 80, 359. Villarreal, E. (2018). Pregnancy and Living Wills: A Behavioral Economic Analysis. Yale LJF, 128, 1052.[…]