Physician Assisted Suicide

At work the other day the subject of physician assisted suicide was brought up and everyone began to express their feelings on the matter. I, personally, feel neutral about the situation. It some cases I do not believe in it and in some ways I do. I thought that this would be a good subject to write about and I looked up cases on the internet when I found this article:


Debate rages in California over physician assisted Suicide

LOS ANGELES — After 10 years as the only state where physician-assisted suicide is legal, Oregon could be getting some big company.
California's Legislature is advancing a proposal modeled after Oregon's law permitting patients diagnosed with six months or less to live to take lethal pills prescribed by their doctor.
The issue has stirred emotion from the Capitol to the pulpits, with supporters casting it as a matter of personal choice and opponents saying it is an immoral compromise of the sanctity of life and a doctors' oath to do no harm.
The two sides agree on this much: If California legalizes physician-assisted suicide, it will prompt many other states to follow suit and perhaps even prepare the way for a national law.
"That's what I certainly am hoping," says Patty Berg, a Democratic assemblywoman from Eureka in Northern California who is the leading sponsor of the bill. Berg says the bill goes next to the appropriations committee. She believes it will go to a House vote before the end of this month.
"Absolutely, other states would follow," says Anthony Adams, a Republican assemblyman from Hesperia and an opponent. An assisted-suicide law in California, he says, would project to the nation "the false illusion that this is somehow a credible thing to do."
In 1994 Oregon voters by a margin of 51% approved the Death with Dignity Act, which took effect in 1997. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in a 2006 ruling.
Oregon's law, as well as California's proposal, permits doctors to prescribe a deadly dose for terminal patients who are deemed by a psychiatrist to be mentally capable and have been told they have six months or less to live. Similar proposals have failed in California's Legislature before, and bills failed in Vermont and Hawaii legislatures this year.
Since the law took effect in Oregon, 292 people have committed suicide under the law, according to a report last month by the state's Public Health Division. The division says 87% of the 46 people who took their lives in 2006 had cancer.
Opponents in Oregon say the law is not used as intended. They say some people are killing themselves for reasons other than pain and suffering and that the state has little or no oversight to monitor what's going on.
"The Oregon experience has been a real ticking time bomb," said Tim Rosales, spokesman for Californians Against Assisted Suicide, which is leading the effort to defeat the proposal.
Rosales cites statistics from the state that just less than half the suicide patients cited pain as their main motivation. Most, 96%, cited loss of autonomy and joy, and three-quarters cited loss of dignity.
"These are all clear indicators of depression — indicators for anyone to commit suicide," says Rosales, who argues those patients should have been treated for those problems, not given a poison pill.
Berg says the law is working as intended and is not misused.
"We should be allowed to live or die according to our own moral code," Berg says. "The opposition comes from a very small segment of society that believes it has a … better morality than the rest of us."
If California follows Oregon, the numbers of people using the law could be much larger.
Adams says the rate of suicide in Oregon, which has a population of 3 million people, could mean more than 500 people a year would commit legal suicide among California's population of 35 million.
That possibility has turned the initiative into a major battle between powerful players, splitting what normally have been allies.
This month, Cardinal Roger Mahony, whose Roman Catholic church strongly opposes the proposal, attacked the speaker of the state Assembly, Fabian Nunez, a Catholic supporter of the assisted-suicide proposal. During a Sunday Mass, Mahony called assisted suicide "against God's law" and said Catholics "should be troubled that Fabian Nunez … has allowed himself to get swept into this other direction, the culture of death."
The California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 doctors, opposes the measure because it is in direct conflict with a doctor's ethical duties. The California Association of Physician Groups, which represents more than 150 medical organizations, supports it.
The California Hospice and Palliative Care Association, whose members provide end-of-life care, opposes the bill on ethical grounds as well. But the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine has dropped its opposition for a policy of "studied neutrality."
California is closer than ever to making it legal, both sides say. Adams, who failed in efforts to stop the bill in a committee vote last month, says Nunez's support is "a signal to the rest of us that he has the votes" needed, 41, to push it through the Assembly.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't said whether he would sign the bill.
For Tom McDonald, 77, of Oroville in Northern California, the debate couldn't be more real.
The retired electronics worker learned in January 2006 that he has melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer. He has outlasted his doctor's estimate that he had a year to live. But he says he watched his mother suffer a painful, six-month decline before her death, and he wants to avoid a similar end.
"How many times have we heard how friends and relatives have died in their sleep? That's wonderful. That's the way I want to go," he said.
Assisted-suicide supporters say McDonald should be able to choose how he dies. Opponents disagree.
"It is about giving doctors the legal right to prescribe medicine whose only purpose is to kill people. This is an immoral act, and it has no place being legislated," Adams says.
Wesley J. Smith, an author and activist against assisted suicide, says he thinks opponents can defeat the bill. Whichever way it goes, California's actions will be watched around the world.
"It's extremely important because California is such a big state, a bellwether," he says

I dont understand why people are so misunderstanding over the situation of Physician assisted suicide. I believe yes their are situations that people are just depressed and looking for an excuse to end their lives, but I think people should be evaluated by every situation and be able to explain their situation and how they feel and if their wishes are to end their life, that is so horrible why not let them? In most of the situations 87 percent of people who commit suicide are terminally ill and I think that it is wrong for them to have the title of "suicide" when they were in a horrible situation and maybe ending their life was the only thing to do in their opinion. I understand other views on the situation such as religion and the pressure of the doctor. I only think that doctors who truly feel comfortable with performing this procedure and believe that they are doing it for the better good should be the doctors who do this. I dont think someone should do something like this if they are going to feel a horrible thing hanging over their head after they do something like this. This is one of the most controversial subjects in my opinion because its like I think its wrong but then again I think its ok, I dont know my feelings on this situation are wierd. I kind of fight with myself on my feelings of this situation. I think that people that have cruel things to say about people who make these kind of decision is wrong because everything goes by case by case bases and no one truly knows what someone is going through unless they are in the same position.

Ethics in nursing students

I got the paper on Wednesday and noticed a very interesting article that caught my eye in relation to this class. If you haven't read the article this is what its about:

Ethics test student nurses
UCF nursing graduates share advice
Karen Johnson
Published: Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Updated: Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Christina DeParis

A Creole-speaking patient is admitted to the hospital with neurocysticercosis, worms in the brain. The nurse arranges for an interpreter to go over discharge information with his family, including how to properly care for him and give him his 10 medications. The hospital’s housekeeper who speaks Creole says that they shouldn’t release the patient, because she overheard the patient’s mother saying that she didn’t fully understand what the interpreter meant.
“What do you do?” UCF alumna Brandie Hollinger asked a group of 25 students, teachers and guests in the Student Union.
Hollinger used her real-world experience as a registered nurse to illustrate the situations that test a nurse’s ethics at the first Ethics Initiative for the College of Nursing Monday night.
“Perspective is everything,” Hollinger said. “Everyone is going to look at a situation and react differently. You have to do what is best for your patient.”
“As nurses, we want to fix the world,” Hollinger said. “If it’s wrong, we want to fix it and make it right. That’s just the way it is, but whatever you do, make sure you can justify it.”
Linda M. Hennig, College of Nursing associate dean of Undergraduate Affairs, said to not let personal preferences get in the way of ethical decisions.
“Some people don’t believe in abortion, but it is legal,” she said. “You have an obligation to care for the patient.”
UCF biology major, Breanna Lee said she agreed with the speakers about separating ethics from personal beliefs.
“Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean it isn’t proper,” she said.
Fellow UCF nursing alumnae Ronnie Brewer and Elizabeth Medina joined Hollinger in sharing their experiences.
Brewer talked about ethical issues concerning tipping a hospital worker, stealing and using feeding tubes on patients.
“When you are considering ethics in medicine, the first rule is to do no harm,” Brewer said.
“There are three H’s in ethics: head, heart and hands. Use your heart and trust your instincts and observe,” she said. Medina said the best thing you can do for a patient is to be there for them.
“Support, support, support, you want to be their go-to person,” she said.
Nurses should push their personal judgments aside. It doesn’t matter if the patient is black or white, or rich or poor.
“The reality of nursing is that there are always going to be ethical issues,” Hollinger said. “You control whether you get upset or don’t control the situation properly.”
As for the Creole-speaking patient, Hollinger did not discharge him. She said the nurses made different charts for the mother to follow and were role-playing to help her understand how to care for her son.
The Ethics Initiative’s SGA representative, Meredith Maher, said that this presentation was a wake-up call.
“Being a student nurse that is going to graduate soon, all the points helped me realize how real graduation is and how real the experiences are,” Maher said. “It’s reality, that’s nursing.”


I think the approach toward this particularly situation went very well and it is the beginning to a change of avoiding all ethical and legal issues in health care. I think that though it wasn't the duty of the housekeeper to speak up, she felt the need to help someone were she works which takes alot of courage knowing that just being a housekeeper some people might just look past what she has to say thinking that her voice doesnt matter, but it does, everyones voice matters. I think that it was a very good example to bring up to the nursing students because other than cases you hear all the time, this just happened and is a situation that was taken care of properly. They talk about personal preferences in the article and how nurses should not let them get in the way of their care for patients, I think this to be a very important and valuable fact. Although you might disagree on something as a health care provider you must always remember your obligation to the patient. Your opinions may be strong in some cases but you have to know going into the field that yes my opinion does matter in some cases but the patient comes first and those opinions may be expressed but the patients decision is final say. I think alot of people get stubborn and act in such a way that is not needed when some believes in something different then they do, that is when you take the time and stand back and look at the situation and question yourself about your career and your duty to that patient or your career. I think that it is very important in health care for your first instict to be "do no harm" that is to the patient in all aspects whether it be care or spirit, it isnt our job to criticize anyones beliefs. If you are goinng into the nursing field or anything above, you should be doing it truly for the sake of the people and to help society itself. The three H's is a good place to start following your heart because being a good person you know deep down what is the right thing to do, although your judgement may be compromised by certain things, you need to follow your heart in all walks of life. Head, use your knowledge from school and life experiences to help you in every situation. This also goes with your hands and the work that you have been through to come this far must mean something. Hands will guide your patients through the care that they need. I think that this article went very well in the treatment of the patient in showing her charts and things to help her better understand what is going on. All around the world people would have just let the patient go, letting creed and money stand in the way of their true judgement. In the end I think people should have a heart dont do untoo others what you dont want done to you. I would expect the best care therefore I would give the best care to patients, because that is what they deserve.

Last Debate

Healthcare organizations should accomodate requests for gender or culturally sensitive specials treatments. I think this statement is true and should always be true and his kind of hard to argue. Though it is hard to argue there are ways it can be done. Todays debate was ok, but in my opinion the con side kept bringing up the same things that did not make alot of sense in the first place.
The first subject brought up was a woman going to the hospital/doctor's office and the right of her to see a woman physician over a male. The con side says that this is not feasible, but when have you ever heard of a woman wanting to see a woman physician a problem. I have never came across this problem before in my life, I know when I was younger I did not feel comfortable seeing a male doctor when I was first starting to get my female check ups and I always got to see a female doctor.
The pro side brought up a very good point talking about the HOPE questions, which is something that I have never heard of before, and this really caught my eye. I thought this was a very good way to throw back and the con side for whatever they were asking. I was still kind of unsure what the terms meant fully but I look them up after the debate today and researched more about them and thought them to be a very valid source. The HOPE concepts for discussion are as follows: H--sources of hope, strength, comfort, meaning, peace, love and connection; O--the role of organized religion for the patient; P--personal spirituality and practices; E--effects on medical care and end-of-life decisions.
The con side said that doctors do not have time to accomodate every single request of the patient. I think this is not true, I may have reasonable requests and some that may not be so reasonable and it is the duty of the doctor to try to accomodate all your requests or give you a valid explanation on why they cannot.
A student also brought up a very good scenerio in class today stating: A lesbian wanted a fertility treatment and the doctor had refused, knowing that she was a lesbian, and stated it was against his beliefs. I guess there were some problems with the case stating that if he cannot make it equal to treat every patient for fertility whether they be a gay couple or not, than he should find ways to accomodate them in such a way to maybe have another physician in his practice that feels comfortable performing in certain cases. I think that doing something like having another physician is very reasonable because it helps the experiences at the practice, the business of the practice, and makes everyone happy.
The con side stated that there cannot be a physician available for every different culture and to accomodate the needs of that culture. I think that physician's today are very diverse and are of all cultures themselves and if they do not practice the wishes of their culture the physician are well rounded enough to know how to take care of the situation, and it is the choice of the patient in the end to decide if they would still like to use that doctor or not. The con side says the doctor only had about twelve minutes with each patient a day and things such as cultural and gender requests take up to much of their time. Well I sat "SO WHAT"! I pay out of my pay check every month to pay for my health care and I will ask for whatever I need and take up more than twelve minutes if I need too, dont you think you deserve the same respect?
The last point brought up that I remember was a physician treating two patients for the same procedure, should the physician be help liable for discrimination for refusing to treat one patient over the other. I find this a pretty easy question because of course if there is no reasonable explanation to why he would treat one over the other, of course it is discrimination, but there are cases in which the other patient may not be able to take likely to the procedure being performed for reasons such as health conditions.
We discussed how we are found to take number of cultural classes throughout high school, associates, bachelors, and all the way up to grad school such as elder classes, culture classes, and religion classes for all aspects around the world. So I think that no matter what a physician should be pretty well rounded on the different cultures and should know what to do in the different cases.
I know if I was a doctor I would try and take on any scenerio to the best of my ability and if I couldnt I would find someone who could and each and every experience would only better myself in my career.

Debate # 5

The debate performed on Tuesday I think went very well considering it seems like it was going to be a one-sided debate. Informed consent is still central to medical ethics. I would say of course it is very important and also very hard to argue. The con side said that cultures refuse to sign informed consent because they do not want to know what is happening to them in a procedure because of their religion. I do not understand this concept because if they want the physician treatment regardless of what is happening to them or what the outcome may be then why don't they just sign the paper and not read or listen to what is happening. If you are person who does not want to know why be offended by informed consent.
Another point was made about twenty three percent of hospitals have interpreters and what would I do if i needed one. Well I definately, in my opinion, would not recieve the procedure if I didnt know what was happening to me. I would pursue getting an interpreter so I would have an understanding of what is going on before I let anyone do any thing to me.
The opposing team says that more laws will not change anything, but how do they figure, I think the laws do alot for us now considering how the world has become, without them I think things would be alot worse. I dont believe that their should be an over abundance of laws making us not be able to be human, but yes they are need in alot of instances to regulate and make sure people know the difference between right and wrong.
A side brought up a case in were the physician states the alternatives to a performance because he/she is made too even though they do not believe in the alternatives and the patient decides to go with the alternative treatment and ends up dying, the physician is held liable. In my opinion the physician should not have done the procedure if he/she was uncomfortable with it and maybe should have referred the patient else where. If I wanted something done and the physician offered me alternatives even though he thought the original was the best, I would know how the physician felt about doing the alternatives that I was considering I would try and find someone who believes in them more and is more confident in the performance.
The con side also brought up about traditions like such in China were a girls father has to make the decision. I believe yes beliefs should be respected and considered but we do things a little different in American and I dont believe, if they made the decision to move here, that the father should have final say on the girls deicision especially if she opposes it.
The con side had to have some kind of argument even though it was very hard and I think they did well, but alot of these points brought up are very hard to argue and are there in black and white. We are American and yes we respect other countries beliefs and such, but we cannot change everything about our society to make someone from a different country feel better about their care.

Debate # 4

I was absent for Debate number four so I figured I would Blog about it and discuss my feelings PRO and CON sides. The topic was: The employment-at-will concept is still appropriate in today’s society. From my understanding the The at will concept means that an employers has the right to fire someone at any given moment for any reason. The Con side may fight that a manager firing someone for any other reason other than misconduct may result it exposure to claims for the organization. I kind of agree with the concept in some ways and some ways I dont but like the law states their are exceptions and limitations to the concept. The reasonable exceptions would be race, sex, and ethnicity or in retaliation for employee conduct that is protected. I just think that people shouldnt be able to be fired for no reason what so ever! If their is a reasonable reason for them to be fired and it can be explained. I have had a situation like this happen to me on one of the jobs I held as a teenager but it wasnt important enough to me to fight to keep it. Florida is also one of the states in which a reason does not have to be presented for letting someone go. I worked at Sonny's BBQ one time and got fired for "stealing out of the draw" and that was definately something I did not do! I wanted to fight the situation so bad because I knew it wasnt true but being such a young age it was easy for me to find another job but in an instance were it was a really important job and I thought they were firing me for rumors or dislike I would definately have something to say about it or present my opinion to someone of hier authority.
The last class I attended was about patient consent, abuse, and neglect. This subject is very simple to me because it goes between the line of right and wrong. Being a physician you should know that asking for consent to do certain things is required and you know when you are doing something wrong to your patient such as abuse or neglect. Unfortunately it happens to much in the world of health care I think people need to stop being so selfish and worry about the needs of their patient. A girl brought up a scenerio on patient consent stating a law that was passed in many states saying that if a woman gave birth by C section to her child then she can never give a natural birth after that and must always give birth through a C section. In my opinion a doctor should be able to give recommendations about doing a C section rather than a natural birth for certain cases but I dont think it should be anyone elses decision on how the baby comes out besides the mother. I dont even understand why there would be a law passed about this knowing all the other laws and ethical statements of a patient having the right to decide what happens to his/her body and the right to refuse. There have been cases where mothers have been arrested and charged for breaking the law on this because they decided to give a home birth naturally! I think this is herendous if a mom wants to give birth the way she wants to give birth it should be her decision and nobody elses.

Discussion, Cases, & Debate

We had a discussion in class not to long ago were we talked about the law and ethics of a psychiatrist having a patient whom expressed thoughts of killing someone. We discussed if the psychiatrist should break that confidentiality and tell someone or not. I think that sometimes people can take thoughts way to far, but on the other hand you never know what someone is capable of doing. If I was the psychiatrist on the case I would try to get as much information out of the situation that I could before coming to any conclusions. If I didnt think that person was really out to hurt anyone I wouldn't want to ruin our progess and trust on what could have been a stupid little comment that he/she didnt mean. I mean who hasnt had a thought like that before... well I dont know I could say something if I was really mad but I wouldnt really mean any harm to anyone. It made me think of my best friend in high school and one of her good friends at the time. The friend had sexual relations with her boyfriend or something and they ended up hating eachother. Well my friend, not a harmful person at all, drew a picture of the girl hanging from a tree and it got in the other girls locker somehow. Well my friend was expelled immediately, I was shocked! I mean i guess you never really know what someone is capable of doing and they had to do what was right for the safety of their students, but I thought it was ridiculous I knew this girl couldnt hurt a fly. I was pretty shocked, I thought suspension and counceling maybe, but being expelled wow. I think this relates to our discussion in class just to the simple fact that you just never know and you have to take precautions to every action.
A case study we had this past week was about a medical assistant sending her patients to get a new order for some lab work that needed to be done after she couldnt read the physicians hand writing. When I first read this case I was kind of shocked that their was even an ethical issue in it at all because little things like this happen all the time, whether it be insurance, getting prescription, or records from another place. I didnt think it was their responsibility for things like that, I mean I questioned it in some instances, but never thought anything could be said about it. I mean I do not know how many times I would have a prescription faxed over to the pharmacy and I would wait an excessive amount of time, especially enough for them to get the prescription ready and by the time I got their they never recieved the fax and I had to call the doctor or go and get a handwritten prescription. This really makes me mad because I am obviously upset, I drove all the way up their for a prescription they didnt recieve, and then they want me to do the work to fix the problem, when it wasnt my fault in the first place! :-) Or how about trying to get records from place to place and they make up excuses on why or how its not their responsibility to get them to fax it! Or the calling to the insurance... this one happens alot, the place I go to says in their paperwork I am covered with my insurance, but them something goes wrong and I am not and I have to make a hundred phone calls to make sure I am covered. I could go on and on with little situations like this, but I guess it's life, you have to do what you have to do. Next time I do think that it is their responsibility I will use my knowledge from class to come up with something smart to say and see if they second guess what they are trying to do.
I wanted to discuss how debate #3 went. I think that we did extremely well I think the conversation kept going back and forth with information and I was proud that neither team were stumpt. It was a little hard to debate with people relating situation to their work (whether it be at a hospital or pharmacy) because it made me feel a little stupid! But thats ok! Overall I had alot of fun with it and thought it was a good experience!

Octamom and Discussions

I have been hearing about the Octamom on my hour drive to school every morning. I didn’t know much about it but kept hearing about artificial insemination for over six kids, I thought wow thats definitely an ethical issue. Being lazy I wrote notes about it and found out more but never posted a blog, then I come to school and what do we talk about... Octamom, man there goes my blog entry. But it is still something I hear about so much and figured hey I can talk about it still, I just won’t have as much to say. I think that this woman cannot be all together psychologically, who in their right mind would put that many kids through what she is. She made a statement about being the only child and always wishing she had siblings, ya but two or three kids in her situation would have been fine. I am so confused where she gets the money for the artificial insemination and for plastic surgery, especially the way the economy is right now. I don’t understand how she got approved for any type of loan. I can’t even get approved for a car under 14 thousand right now and I have good income and a high credit score. Someone has to be behind her in all of this whether it be the media’s support because their making money off of her or something! Not to mention in our class aspect this is ethically and morally wrong. I think that the doctor shouldn’t have been able to do that procedure that many times and I think he should have been stopped somehow someway. I think that the kids in a way should be taken from her but in a way shouldn’t. I don’t know how she is going to afford the needs of the children when she obviously only thinks of her wants. I just wanted to express my opinion on this case because it is taking up so much media and shouldn’t, she shouldn’t be praised and given so much attention for what she is doing.
In class the other day we passed around ethical dilemmas to discuss and I could sit and talk about a lot of them for hours. The first one I remembered was a partner in a clinic going back to his old ways of using drugs. Should he be fired? I don’t think that would be ethically right at all, yes it might be legal due to the drug free work place, but what happen to the oath that everyone took to help others and to do no harm. In this situation even if he is a co-worker, not a patient, you would think as a physician your first instinct would be to help him and do anything you could to help, so you know inside that you tried everything to help, and if it doesn’t work there wouldn’t be any guilt left about it, you can only try so hard. My first step would be to address the issue, I would say look man I can tell you have started using again and you could put your job, life, and/or life of your patients in jeopardy as well. If he didn’t realize and make a suggestion then and there I would refer him to classes or rehab depending on the severity of his usage. He would have to take leave from work to get his act together. Hopefully in that time frame he would realize what he would be loosing and straighten up his act and if not we would take the situation further. Firing someone right off the back would be a horrible thing to do and could involve lawsuits, guilt, and more problems than needed.
Another situation was instance were a perfectly could surgeon got really upset and through a tantrum and flipped a surgical trey. My opinion on this is everyone has their bad day, I have, you have, and I am sure everyone has. The big question is, is how many times has this happened, did she seem to have anger problems with patients or co-workers before, and has she had problems in the past. In this case she hasn’t, she was well known for her good work and professionalism. In my opinion she should be spoken to and asked her problem of why she was having a bad day and what set her off? I would explain to her that it is unacceptable and that if something like that was persistent that following actions would be taken, but I would say that understand mistakes happen and for her to learn from this one and try to do something else to deal with her anger. It is really funny that this exact dilemma was brought up in class because me and my brother were talking about a similar case were he works in Mississippi, not saying hospital names, but a surgeon was performing and the surgical tech kept handing the wrong instruments to the doctor, like this case a perfectly known doctor and a good one at that, he got so angry at her he flipped the trey, broke sterile field by taking off his gloves walked to a desk close by and pulled out an application to waffle house told her to fill it out and get the F*** out of his OR. Nothing happen to this surgeon in this case and yes I believe it is a little different, I believe that performance was uncalled for and some kind of action was needed to be done.
I love how dilemmas and cases can always be pertained to real life situations, that’s what makes this class so interesting to me, IT’S REAL!

Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas

Everyday in class we begin a more interesting topic than the time before. I can tell I am going to enjoy the semester in class very much. Today we discussed alot of different issues portaining to the female reproductive organs. I just like everyone have my own opinion on the situations and am going to express them through the topics we have covered today.
Abortion was the first topic and is a very big one I see all around me. I personally think that it is the womans decision and every situation may be different, in some situations it might not be right but who am I to judge or say anything to that person. I think that being irresponsible and not taking the situation seriously in the beginning of the pregnancy is uncalled for. I dont think abortion should be allowed after a certain point in the pregnancy because that baby is growing and developing inside of you and could be to far in development for an abortion decision should not be made. A drama at my story has been going on this past month about a girl who is 18 and told someone at work she was pregnant and was getting an abortion. Everyone at my work is completely against abortion and heard the rumors and were very cruel to the girl, writing threatening emails and sending pictures and facts from the internet. I thought that it was very immature of grown woman to act this way but on the otherhand I think that the girl should have known better to keep her mouth shut about her business. I thinks it very sad because she probably didnt have anyone to help her through the decision. She ended up telling everyone she was not pregnant at all. I think she probably got the abortion without any support or anyone to stand by her side. All she had was people that sat there knowing that this young girl had alot on her shoulders and talked crap about her. There are situations like this all around and this is a dilemma that will probably go back forth for lifetimes, but everyone has there own opinion and I don't think of it as right and wrong, moreless as a personal situation and decision.
Abortion pertaining to the father, if the father knows and is aware of everything that is going on I think he has the right to be involved give his concerns and opinions to the mother but in the end she makes the decision. There are alot of facts that are very true in why the woman should be able to make those decisions on her own.
Artifiical Insemination is another topic we discussed today and I saw it in different points that I have never thought of before. I actually saw the wrong in doing it, and the harm and battles that it can cause. I always thought of artificial insemination as an honor or gift to be able to have a baby when a woman can't. Now there are so many different factors that can make it so difficult. I cannot believe there have actually been alot of cases were a woman is inserted with the wrong egg or sperm, you would think the clinics would be efficiently regulated. There should be rules, regulations, guidelines, and laws for an clinic or place that has artificial insemination. The conversation has opened my mind alot today on the situation and I am not quite sure were I stand on it.
Sterilization is a situation were I find alot of woman want and should probably get it done. I see alot of family's living in poverty because they can't afford the children that they keep having but the doctor's will not let them have their tubes tide because of the number of children they have or their age. In some cases were a woman is out of state of mind to have a baby she should be forced to take some precaution whether it be sterilization or not. We have enough kids living in poverty, not being cared for properly, not knowing who their parents are, and taking after their parents living an unexceptable life. This to should be taken on a case by case basis but as a normal woman living in poverty or a woman who just simply does not want to have kids that should be that woman right to decide.
It seems there are so many dilemmas that people have there different opinions on and I could not label as right vs. wrong. I do not know how people actually make laws and rules to go about dilemmas as the ones we talk about in class, it is very hard for me to completely take sides on any of them becuase I can see it from all aspects. I just do not know how they do it!