*new* 9 April 12 Unnecessary Medical Tests?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/do-you-really-need-that-medical-test.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120409
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/04/top-45-ways-to-cut-health-care-costs-according-to-medical-groups.html
28 Mar 12 Face Transplant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17534646
26Mar12 Research on Bird Flu
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/26/149357569/bird-flu-studies-getting-another-round-of-scrutiny-by-panel
End to Chinese prisoner organ donation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17485103
U.S. Supreme Court case re: IVF children conceived after their father had died (and whether they are eligible for federal survivor benefits)
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148935151/justices-weigh-ivf-technology-against-1939-law
IVF conception & citizenship
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-03-19/in-vitro-citizenship/53656616/1
I can see where this issue would be very complicated to determine whether or not the children should recieve benefits. Since the father was passed away before they were even concieved it is true that they were never existent while he was alive and there mother's marriage to him would have ended at his death. However, they are still his children. In my personal opinion, I feel they should still be entitled to benefits. Their father gave his sperm with the intention of them being born.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caitlin. I think it is very dependent on the intention of the husband. If he is intending to have children with his wife and there is something that keeps that from being possible before his death, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be considered the father of the child in the same respect that I am to my father. Even though death would end the marriage, it cannot nullify the genetic certainty of the relationship between father and child. I understand that it is ambiguous due to the lack of knowledge of Congress when the law is made, but now that the technology exists, the law must change as well as the precedent in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteWe just talked about this in senior theology this morning. I think that the idea of the mother implanting the children after the death of the father is a viable and even admirable concept if it was done entirely out of want for the children themselves, and not to use the children as a means to receive benefits. I do NOT think that the mother should receive benefits for the children. She KNEW the father was dead before she implanted his sperm, therefore, she is conciously manipulating a system that is there to help children that actually SURVIVED their father's death...not children that were conceived postmortem.
ReplyDeleteThe situation would be different if the mother and father had conceived the child before he died and they were in utero before he died, or even if she had implanted the children before the father died due to his impotency. The fact that she conceived the children after the death of the father makes her actions look like premeditated manipulation of the system, and I do not think this should be condoned.
I agree with Ashley. The fact that the mother knew that she would be raising her children without the help of their father and chose to conceive anyway should negate any potential claim on benefits from her late husband by her children.
DeleteI agree with Nicole and Caitlin. I think that the husband putting sperm aside for his wife to have children. Even though the father passed away before the children were conceived, it is still his children. I believe that the children should receive the same benefits as someone else that was conceived or born before the father’s death. The children are still the children; it shouldn’t matter if the children were conceived after the father’s death.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that they should receive the benefits of their dead father. There are some people in this country, which is sad to say, that have more children because they receive more money for them. Or they take in children that are not theirs to receive more money for them. These children are not cared for and neglected. They are used only as a government paycheck each month. With some of the sad people in this country I wouldn't put it past some of them to use their dead husbands sperm in the same way, to have more children and get more checks.
DeleteI agree with Ashley. The mother knew that her husband was not going to be around to support her child yet she proceeded to have the implantation. These benefits were meant to help the family proceed after the death of the parent because the family could not control the death of the loved one. The mother could in this case, however, have decided not to conceive his child after his death and so she made a conscious decision to raise the child without the support of her husband.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Ashley. If the government is to allow something like this to happen they would be opening up a black hole within the system that people can manipulate. Yet, at the same time its so hard to say that the mother is wrong when she lost someone so dear to her and wanted to have her husbands children. Yes, you can say that the children are still his children but if this is ok for women to do and get money from this is an very slippery slope for the government i think that they must draw a line somewhere it's just unfortunate it may be with her case.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the In vitro babies denied U.S.citizenship I can understand the mothers distress, but I also see clearly how the embassy draws the line. Biologically the children have no genetic traits linking them to the "mother." Deeming it her responsibility to recognize the problem and have the appropriate solution. Such as figuring out the citizenship, or lie about the citizenship of the donors, and even flying back to the U.S to conceive her children. In any rate the rules are clear and do apply to her situation. You would think one would reasearch everything possible for in vitro babies especially ones that are going to be conceived outside the U.S.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Supreme Court Case:
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is right for children of deceased fathers, who were conceived after their father's death, to receive survivor's benefits. I think it is perfectly fine for men to deposit sperm at a fertility clinic, especially if they are in the military and are deployed. I think a child that is invitrolly fertilized prior to the father's death is fine and should be eligible to receive survivor's benefits. If we allowed women to become pregnant off their husband's frozen sperm long after their husband's death and allowed them to collect survivor's benefits for their children, then somewhere along the line women would start to abuse it. We may also run into situations where the woman decides she wants to have another child with the husband's sperm and the husband dies while out of the country right around the same time the sperm was fertilized. It would be difficult to know the father's exact time of death in relation to the sperm being fertilized. I think there should be some sort of medium where in this situation the child would be eligible for benefits only when there has been some investigation into the situation and it is proven that the wife had no clue the husband died prior to the fertilization of the embryo.
I do think that those children still should recieve federal benefits even though they were concieved after the death of their father because it is still their father and they are going to have to grow up without their biological father which can be very dramatic for some children.
DeleteMom should have thought about that BEFORE she conceived the children. She made the choice to have the children, regardless of the fact that they would have to grow up without that biological father. The federal benefits are meant for children who initally depended on financial benefits from the father. The mom conceived these children knowing the father was deceased and couldn't provide that benefit. THerefore, she has the duty to foot the bill, not the government.
DeleteIn response to the Face Transplant article:
ReplyDeleteI think that it is amazing that someone who has been suffering from so much physical and emotional turmoil due to a gun accident or a dog attack can regain some of their "normal" lifestyle. Some would express the concern that people will begin asking for facial transplants when it is not "necessary". I think that this issue should be approached with the same mentality as plastic surgery. I think that if people want it even though they are already "normal", it is sad but there is nothing immoral about it.
The Face Transplant article is simply amazing. Looking at the before pictures and the after pictures it doesn't even look the same. I can't believe how a surgery can affect someone's life in this way. Although Richard Lee Norris has struggled through his life since the accident, now he can have a whole new outlook on his life and how other people look at him. After reading the article I thought that Richard Lee Norris was born that way, and it wasn't from a gun injury. Seeing how it was from an injury, it shows that in an instant a life can change forever. This article amazed me on how far medicine has come.
ReplyDeleteWould it be less moral for him to get the transplant if he had been born with facial deformities, and not had them occur by accident?
DeleteWith the IVF and citizenship, I think this is a complete violation of this woman's right as a citizen and as a mother of the child(ren) that she carried herself. She shouldn't be discriminated against because of her biological difficulty to have children, something that she can't help. If her children are denied citizenship, then, in an effort to be consistent, they should investigate all cases of in vitro within the United States as well. Also, it is truly sad that women and families can adopt children and automatically make them citizens, but if they birth their own children, they have to prove that they are citizens. It's truly disheartening and I really hope that the government can step it up and advance with the advancement of technology. The basis of our government, the Constitution, was made to be fluid and to flow and change with the natural changes of society, and in this case, the government has failed to do that.
ReplyDeleteI find the face transplant story very inspirational. It is amazing that after so many years of recluse they were able to give this man his life back. I can only imagine what it must have been like to live in isolation for so many years. I also think it is wonderful that they are intending to use this technique to help soldiers who have been wounded. Giving these soldiers improved function and a an improved sense of confidence is the least we could do after all their service!
ReplyDeleteIVF:
ReplyDeleteI think the article on how the child was concieved after the fathers death was very cool. However it is wrong for the child to receive survior benefits because the child was not living or conceived before his death. I think it is awesome for sperm to be set aside for a case like a soldier going over to war to fight and just in case he puts his sperm in a bank to be held for his wife. But in every case, it would not be right for the children who are not conceived before the father's death to receive survivor benefits.
The rising cost of healthcare is something that has really come to light for me about doing my healthcare elsewhere paper. I saw how much people pay for healthcare in China and it is so much lower than what we pay. I understand that people become scarred and overly cautious when faced with illness, but it is important that educated decisions are made. I like how the article called for both doctors and patients to take responsibility for making decisions about what tests are necessary. Some of the tests on the list seem pretty crucial but maybe it is only on a case to case basis. I think the more doctors look at their patients as individuals instead of a checklist of things to do, it will be easier to see when a test is really necessary rather than routine. Because what is even worse than rising cost is the possibility of "excess radiation, adverse drug effects, exposure to germs in medical institutions and even exploratory surgery or biopsies when scans produce a false positive" (nytimes). Once the steps are made to reduce tests that are unnecessary, it won't be as big of a deal. It is taking that first step that is the most difficult part of the process.
ReplyDeleteNicole, I agree with you my health care elsewhere paper also helped me to realize how expensive our care is here. I think that it is great that doctors are trying to cut down on cost and help patient's elminate some unneccessary tests. As a nursing student, I also gree that some of the test they are trying to cut out seem pretty important. Things such as pre-screening for cancer could save lives and ultimately save the patient even more money.
ReplyDeleteI also think that medical rationing is a good method for cutting costs and helping bring medical expenses down. I think that it will be good for the doctors to look at their patients’ individual needs, especially since they should be doing this anyway. However, I also think that Caitlin expressed a valid concern about cutting crucial tests that could be saving lives. I think that we must find a level of test rationing that will ensure the safety of the patient while helping lower medical spending. The key is to cut what is truly excessive and not get caught in the slippery slope of rationing too strictly.
ReplyDeleteAs the cost of health care increases, I think that it is important to find ways to cut costs without putting the patients' life in danger. Only doing tests that are medically necessary would be one way because it would eliminate the later problems that a patient could have from some of the tests. The doctors and patients both need to see that they both need to take precautions in testing and to realize if the doctor is doing the test because it is simply procedure, then maybe there would be another way and not have the test. Using medical rationing would be one way to cut the costs of health care in society.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading China to end organ donations from executed prisoners, I found it very interesting. I cannot believe the Chinese government takes prisoners organs and gives them to others. I think China needs to set up a better organ donor system and not take advantage of different people who cannot fend for themselves. China needs to not use people as a means, they need to allow their people, no matter what state in their life to live to the fullest.
ReplyDeleteEven though face transplants seem strange, there are giving that person another opportunity at life. Also, with the issue of the mom concieving a child after the father dies is sad. If the father wanted a child to begin with but could not do it naturally, there should be financial aid for this mother. But if he did not agree with this there should not be financial aid because the father was gone before the child was concieved. It is sad to begin with that the mother did this act because now the child is growing up not knowing his/her father. The mother could have done this act out of selfishness because she wanted to keep a part of him with her. Its a very difficult issue.
ReplyDeleteIVF: Even thought it's true that making an exception to one person would probably mean making it an exception to others but I think the intent should be considered while making the decision. The mother mentioned in this paper carried out what she and her husband had planned to do before his death, she didn't just come up with the idea after his death to gain some type of benefit. I believe the decision should be on a case to case basis with the intent and reasoning studied carefully.
ReplyDeleteFace Transplant:
As with any other surgery, procedure or medical treatment there are always risks involved. Face transplants along with other transplants give a person a second chance at life. Our face is what defines us even if it is preliminarily. Many people talk about having someone else's face and if that would effect their personality and I didn't think it would, I believe that the person's personality and attitude will be affected more by the deformity than anything else. I looked into it and this is what I found:
"The transplanted material would be a kind of a soft mask made of skin and soft tissue. Its final shape would depend on the bone structure of the recipient. That means that the person who got the transplant would have a brand-new face. It would not look like the face of the donor. It would not look like the recipient's old face, either. The recipient will not look like the donor or like themselves," Pearlman says. "We are not transplanting the underlying skeleton. So there will be no resemblance whatever. They will look more like someone with reconstruction of a severe burn or devastating cancer."
Someone asked if it would be moral to get a face transplant has this been a congenital deformity and not an accident I don't see a difference. Either way the person is living with a deformity and will suffer the consequences. Congenital heart disease is a deformity for example and we don't see any moral issue there.
In response to the face transplant:
ReplyDeleteI was first shocked that the US Navy funded this surgery. I think he deserved it if he wanted it I didn't think that the Navy would deem it necessary. I think its awesome that he had this done and is already experiencing the senses that we experience everyday. This is really a happy story.
Prison organ donation:
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to learn that two-thirds of organ donation in China comes from prisoners. This is alot to suddenly stop. I can see how the infection rate in the prisoners would be high so that would not make it an ideal donation. I am eager to see what will happen and if there will be a donation shortage since many Chinese individuals prefer to buried whole. I thought it was also interesting that death row inmates are pressured to donate organs.. I am wondering how they are pressure or what that means exactly.
Concerning the "Do you really need that test" talks about the billions of dollars wasted on test for the slightest ace and pain. Is this a result of a precaution that every doctor practices or the lack of knowledge the doctor knows what is going on with their patient. Either way its costing a large amount of tax dollars. The same goes for prescribing antibiotics for simple colds. This is developing increased drug cost as well as drug immunity to drugs that previously worked.
ReplyDelete