skip to main content
My Home Thinking and Doing Ethics PHI-210RS-OL04Select a course… Message alerts Update alerts Subscription alerts Lucinda Perry
Navigation
Thinking and Doing Ethics PHI-210RS-OL04
- Content
- Discussions
- Grades
- Classlist
- Whiteboard
- Activities
- More Tools
Side Panel
Expand side panel
Breadcrumb:
- Discussions List
- View Topic
- View Thread
Settings
Help
SearchView profile card for Eric Rovie
A recent case about rights: Charlie Gard
Eric Rovie posted Mar 4, 2018 12:01 PMSubscribePrevious Next This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll.Adjust automatic marking as read setting
A recent case, from the news in England, highlights one of the questions from this module. Several of you have noted that there is generally an obligation to PRESERVE life. But there are some cases where preserving life is extremely costly, is unlikely to save the life in the long term, and might use up resources that would be better served given to others (in emergency medicine, this is the principle of TRIAGE).
Some info on the case:
“Charlie suffers from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare degenerative condition which has left him with irreversible brain damage and a loss of motor skills.Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Yates, clashed with doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where Charlie has been cared for since October, over whether to stop treating him.”
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/04/535530470/understanding-the-case-of-charlie-gard
I am not familiar enough with the details to make an assessment, but the doctors and court have ruled that there is no hope of recovery.
Charlie Gard died in hospice after the courts determined that the hospital was correct in their assessment of his long-term prognosis.
This case brings up the issue of right: natural, political, and the ‘right to life’. Should we continue to use medical resources to keep someone alive if there is no chance of recovery?
Make sure POST has 200 hundred word’s or more.
Psychology homework help
