DOCSLIB.ORG

Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More Information Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information Index abortion, 176 Baumrind, Diana, 57 abuse, 176 Belmont Report, 57, 67 adderall, 231 beneficence,57 , 191 Aguirre twins, 207 benevolence, 9 altruism, 9 best interests, 23–35, 39, 60, 127, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 174, 180, 204, 206, 211, 215, 226, 30, 67, 70, 73, 87, 113, 121, 141, 151, 268–270, 272–274 156, 160, 221, 268, 269 Bijani twins, 205, 207–210 American College of Medical Genetics, birth control, 175, 184 125 brain death, 248 American College of Surgeons, 189, 198 British Medical Association, 74 American Pediatric Surgical Association, Brown v. Board of Education, 45 189 American Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Paediatric Society, 73, 142, 125 256, 270 androgen insensitivity syndrome, 149, cardiopulmonary death, 248, 255 151, 158 Cardoza, Benjamin, 48–49 anencephalic babies, 255–257 Centers for Disease Control and apnea test, 249 Prevention (CDC), 115, 222 artificial hydration,252 , 255 Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Ashley treatment, 182 Act (CAPTA), 28–36, 278–280 Ashley X, 182 child labor law, 43 assent, 11, 59–60, 190 Child Neurology Society, 253 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder children as a means, 40–41 (ADHD), 231–240 clinical determination of brain death, Attard twins, 206, 210–215 250 atypical genital development, 149, 156 clitoromegaly, 157 autonomy, 173, 184, 190, 276 cloacal exstrophy, 155 coercion, 67, 177, 265 Baby Doe case, 165 cognitive enhancement, 240 Baby Doe rules, 28–36, 279 competence, 59 Baby Gabriel, 255 confirmatory tests of whole brain death, Baby K, 47 249 Bacon, Francis, 15 compassion, 9, 33, 90 285 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information 286 Index constrained parental autonomy, 127 feminist ethics, 166, 168 contraception, 176 fertility, 149 Council for International Organizations fetus in fetu, 203 of Medical Sciences, 58 fidelity,8 –9 Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of fiduciary obligation, 11–12 the American Medical Association, of parents, 11, 17–18 125 of physicians and parents as Counseling, 265 fiduciaries,18 –20 courage, 8, 90 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), craniopagus, 203, 206, 207, 209 187, 221, 233 creative phosphokinase, 114–115 futility, 264, 271 Cruzan, 275 futility legislation, 265 Danish Council of Ethics, 250 gender, 149, 150 Davis, Dena, 40 gender identity, 150 dead-donor requirement, 248, 255–256 gender role, 150 delivery room resuscitation, 143 Genetic Information Non-discrimination dexamethasone (DEX), 159–160 Act, 135 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental gestational age estimation, 141–142 Disorders, 4th ed (DSM-IX), 231–232 goals, 6–7, 26, 118 dicephalic twins, 203, 206–207 gonadal dysgenesis, 149 doctrine of double effect, 212 gonadal status, 153 do not resuscitate (DNR), 269 gonadectomy, 154 Dworkin, Gerald, 40 Gregory, John, 12, 15–17 Grimes v Kennedy Krieger, 62 electrocerebral silence on electroencephalography, 249 Heiman, Henry, 56 emancipated minor, 64 Hensel twins, 207 Emergency Medical Treatment and herd immunity, 226 Labor Act (EMTALA), 47–48 HIV 75, 76–77 Epicure study, 142 Hobbes, Thomas, 23 equipoise, 193 Holc, Paul, 255 Ethical Guidelines for Innovative Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 47 Surgery, 195 Holten twins ethics committees, 88–90 Hooker, Worthington, 73 case consultation, 96–102 Hopkins baby, 32 chairing, 102–103 hormone replacement therapy, 154, education, 104 158–159 follow-up and evaluation, 103–104 HPV vaccine, 223 membership, 90–96 Human Genome Project, 125 pediatric, 90–96 human subject research, 186, 195 policy development, 105 Hume, David, 15, 271 European Society for Paediatric humility, 9 Endocrinology, 151 Huntington disease, 27, 126, 134 eugenics, 177 hyperkinetic disorder, 232 extremely preterm infant, 141, 143 hysterectomy, 103, 182 familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), Illinois appellate court, 183 131 immunization, 219–227 Feinberg, J., 132 immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT), 117 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information Index 287 incest, 176 minimally conscious state, 257 infanticide, 170 –171 moderation, 8 informed consent, 178, 179 Money, John, 150 innovations, 188–189, 194, 196 Montalvo v. Borkovec, 30 In re Estate of C.W., 180 moral status, of children and parents, 38 In re E.G., 276 multidisciplinary team, 152–153 In re Estate of K.E.J., 183 Multi-Society Task Force on the In re Gault, 45 Persistent Vegetative State, 252 In re Terwillinger, 178, 179, 181, 183 Institute of Medicine, 113, 121, 222 National Association of Retarded institutional review boards (IRBs), Children (NARC), 113 57–69, 89, 187, 188, 191 National Commission for the Protection International Classification of Diseases, 10th of Subjects of Biochemical and ed (ICD 10), 232 Behavioral Research, 56 intersex, 149 National Society of Genetic Counselors, intolerability, 273 125 irreversible coma, 248 necessity, 191 ischiopagus, 203, 210 neglect, 176 neuro-enablement, 240 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 225 newborn screening Jenner, Edward, 54–55 consent, 119–121 justice, 8, 32–33, 57, 69, 118, 119, 141, cystic fibrosis, 116–119 144–145, 192, 204, 206 Duchenne muscular dystrophy, 113 juvenile court system, 43 Guthrie cord, 112, 113–114, 119 identification of carriers, 116–117 Kennedy Kriegr Institue (KKI), 62–63 phenylketonuria, 111, 113–114 Klinefelter syndrome, 149 research, 119 sickle cell disease, 116–117 Lakeberg twins, 206 nonmaleficence,191 Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine nontraumatic brain injury, 252, 253 Society, 151 Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 142 legal status of children and parents, Nuremberg Code, 56 43–52 nurture-neuroethics, 208, 210, 214, 235 life-sustaining treatment, 250, 262–281 Linares, Sammy, 280 omphalopagus, 203 live donor liver graft transplantation, 193 orchiectomy, 158 Locke, John, 39–40, 43, 166–168 organ donation, 248, 251 Loma Linda University Medical Center, organ transplantation, 248 256 parasitic twin, 203 Marion’s Case, 281 parens patrial, 44, 49, 178, 179, 271, 275 marriage, 176 Parham v. JR, 39, 50 McCarther twins, 207 Paul, Diane, 114 McCormick, Richard, 56–57 paternalism, 173, 191 Mengele, Josef, 55 Pennsylvania, 178 mens rea, 214 Percival, Thomas, 12, 16–17 mental disability, 174, 176, 177, 178, 181, permanent vegetative state, 252–255 183 in children, 253, 264, 270 methylphenidate, 231 personhood, 165–166, 169 Meyer v. Nebraska, 44 Piaget, Jean, 63–64 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information 288 Index Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 44 Scientology movement, 233 Policy for the Protection of Human self-defense, 213 Research Subjects, 57–58 sexual function, 149 Poling, Hannah, 222 sexuality, 173, 174 poor, 177 sexual orientation, 150 worthy and unworthy, 14–15 Singapore, 208 Porter, Dorothy, 123 Singer, Peter, 165–170 Porter, Roy, 123 singleton assumption, 205 President’s Commission for the Study Society of University Surgeons, 190 of Ethical Problems in Medicine Sophie’s choice, 213 and Biomedical and Behavioral state laws, 182, 184, 225 Research, 87 status epilepticus, 189 Prince v. Massachusetts, 44–45, 49 sterilization, 177–179, 181, 183 professional integrity, 16, 18–19 sudden unexpected death in epilepsy proportionality, 208, 210 (SUDEP), 75–76 pseudohermaphroditism, 149 surgical innovation, 186, 191 pyopagus, 203 sympathy, 15 quality of life, 267 tandem mass spectrometry, 111 terminal illness, 264 Ramsey, Paul, 56–57 thimerosal, 221 rape, 176 thoracopagus, 203 Re A, 211, 215 transhumanism, 240 reasonableness, 25 traumatic brain injury, 252, 253 Re C, 274 trust, 15–16, 254, 263 Red Book, 221 truth telling, 73 reproductive privacy, 174, 175 cultural context, 78–80 research and dying child, 80–82 adolescents, 63–65 tubal ligation, 178, 180, 183 historical perspectives, 54–58 Turner syndrome, 75, 77–78, 149 informing parents and children, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 56 61–62 minimal risk, 58 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and neonates, 66 Human Rights, 87 payments for participation, 66–70 United Nations Convention on the Rights regulations on, 56–59 of the Child, 50–51, 74 responsibility of investigators and United States Supreme Court, 44, 174, IRBs, 62–63 175, 225, 275 respect, 57, 204, 255 United States Uniform Determination of rights, 132–133 Death Act, 249 Ritalin, 231 utilitarian principle, 168 Roe v. Wade, 175 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child vaccines, 223 Health, 270 value judgment, 267 R v. Dudley, 214, 215 virtue ethics, 3–5 cardinal, 7–9 sacrifice surgery, 204, 206 and medicine, 5–6, 263 Schneider, Carl, 49 in pediatrics, 7 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information Index 289 wakefulness without awareness, Willowbrook State School, 55 252 wisdom, 7–8 ward, 65 World Health Organization, 112 Washington State law, 182 World Medical Association Declaration Washington State’s Protection and of Helsinki, 56 Advocacy System, 182 Wentworth, Arthur, 56 Zucert v. King, 225 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nontherapeutic Growth Attenuation, Parental Medical Decision Making, and the Profoundly Developmentally Disabled Child’S Right to Bodily Integrity
    KOLL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 12/17/2009 2:48 PM GROWTH, INTERRUPTED: NONTHERAPEUTIC GROWTH ATTENUATION, PARENTAL MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, AND THE PROFOUNDLY DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD’S RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY MARY KOLL* Should parents of a profoundly developmentally disabled child be permitted to permanently terminate their child’s healthy bodily de- velopment in order to arguably increase the child’s quality of life? While such a procedure may sound like something out of science fic- tion, a highly publicized medical journal article released in 2006 de- scribed the case of Ashley X, a profoundly developmentally disabled child who received high-dose hormone treatment—along with a mas- tectomy and a hysterectomy—to permanently stunt her growth and al- legedly increase her quality of life. Though the authors of the article presented this type of nontherapeutic growth attenuation as a viable medical option for profoundly disabled children, critics from all over the world characterized the procedure—which came to be known as the “Ashley Treatment”—as a grave and unacceptable human rights violation. Nonetheless, the Ashley Treatment has also been met with support from some, most notably the parents of profoundly disabled children, many of whom have expressed a desire for their own child- ren to undergo similar procedures. This Note explores the question of whether parents should be permitted to choose such interventions on behalf of a child from the perspective of the child’s rights, specifi- cally, the child’s fundamental right to bodily integrity. Following a brief description of the case of Ashley X and the ensuing controversy, the author describes the right to bodily integrity, including its origins, its modern constitutional status, and its application to profoundly dis- abled children.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Statement
    PERSONAL ASSISTANTS AND COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING: PROMOTING A BETTER BALANCE OF AUTONOMY AND WELL-BEING FOR ADULTS WITH MODERATE, MILD, AND BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION by Sarah M. Pope B.S., University of New Hampshire, 2000 J.D., University of Pittsburgh, 2007 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Center for Bioethics and Health Law in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2007 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE CENTER FOR BIOETHICS AND HEALTH LAW This thesis was presented by Sarah M. Pope It was defended on April 13, 2007 and approved by Elizabeth Chaitin, DHCE, Center for Bioethics and Health Law James Flannery, JD, School of Law Thesis Advisor: Alan Meisel, JD, Center for Bioethics and Health Law, School of Law ii Copyright © by Sarah M. Pope 2007 iii PERSONAL ASSISTANTS AND COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING: PROMOTING A BETTER BALANCE OF AUTONOMY AND WELL-BEING FOR ADULTS WITH MODERATE, MILD, AND BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION Sarah M. Pope, J.D., M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2007 Autonomy is a core value of American tradition and is promoted in health care through the doctrine of informed consent. The notion underlying informed consent is that patients should have the right to decide, and are often in the best position to know, what will enhance their own well-being. Although this ethic has been extended to incompetent patients, by employing surrogate decision making, providing surrogate decision makers for adults with moderate, mild, and borderline mental retardation (“M-BMR”), who could potentially make their own decisions if adequate supports were offered, unreasonably restricts the autonomy of such individuals and often results in disregard for the patients’ human dignity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Case of Ashley X
    Forever Small: The Strange Case of Ashley X EVA FEDER KITTAY I explore the ethics of altering the body of a child with severe cognitive disabilities in such a way that keeps the child ‘‘forever small.’’ The parents of Ashley, a girl of six with severe cognitive and developmental disabilities, in collaboration with her physi- cians and the Hospital Ethics Committee, chose to administer growth hormones that would inhibit her growth. They also decided to remove her uterus and breast buds, assuring that she would not go through the discomfort of menstruation and would not grow breasts. In this way she would stay ‘‘forever small’’ and be able to be carried and handled by family members. They claimed that doing this would ensure that she would be able to be part of the family and of family activities and to have familial care. But the procedure has raised thorny ethical questions. I wish to explore these questions philosophically by bringing to bear my own experiences as a mother of a grown daugh- ter with severe cognitive impairments. PRELUDE THE CASE In 2002, the parents of a six-year-old girl with a condition that will require physical care throughout her life, and who had begun to exhibit signs of pre- cocious puberty, requested, and were granted, permission to have high doses of estrogen administered to induce the premature closing of the long-bone epiphyses, thus maintaining the girl’s height at 4’5’’. The intention was to facilitate her care by keeping her small. To reduce the uterine bleeding that accompanies the procedure, as well as the risk of uterine cancer, she underwent a hysterectomy prior to the estrogen treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ashley Treatment: the Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 12 2009 The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights Jillian Kornblatt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Recommended Citation Jillian Kornblatt, The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 773 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol10/iss2/12 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. KORNBLATT J. The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights. MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 2009;10(2): 773-800. Note The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights Jillian Kornblatt* In 2006 two Seattle doctors performed several procedures to attenuate the growth of a profoundly neurologically and cognitively disabled six-year-old girl. When the doctors described the treatment in a medical journal, the story gained worldwide publicity and quickly became the subject of a highly contentious and emotionally charged controversy. As a result, a federally-sanctioned disability rights protection organization conducted an investigation and concluded that the treatment should not have been performed without a court order and that doing so violated the girl’s constitutional rights. Part I of this Note considers the legal framework applied to the treatment decision and how the framework would apply to other children whose parents requested the treatment. Part II then analyzes whether this framework adequately protects the best interests and constitutional rights of potential candidates for this treatment and their parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet: Women with Disabilities and Legal Issues
    TASC is sponsored by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). TASC is a division of the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN). Fact Sheet: Women with Disabilities and Legal Issues Concerning Reproductive Health August, 2011 Prepared by: National Health Law Program Jina Dhillon and Celine Lefebvre1 with a grant from the Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC) Introduction This fact sheet describes significant reproductive health-related legal issues that women with disabilities may face. Women with disabilities are particularly susceptible to discriminatory standards of care, coercion and misinformation about their reproductive autonomy. Courts have issued decisions involving the capacity to consent to sterilization, abortion and similar procedures, or the ability of a guardian to make reproductive health determinations in the best interests of the individual. This fact sheet provides an overview of case law in this area as well as a brief discussion of other issues identified by legal scholars as important areas for advocacy. Reproductive Health Issues Sterilization People with mental and physical disabilities have often been subjected to forced sterilization. The notion that these women and men are unable to make meaningful decisions about their reproductive capacity often leads caretakers, guardians, and the courts to consider sterilization as the best option for them. Case law regarding sterilization stems from the United States Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that instituted compulsory sterilization of individuals with mental disabilities.2 Since then, many cases have addressed the issue of sterilization of women with disabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities
    Syracuse University SURFACE Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects Projects Spring 5-1-2015 An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities Katelyn Marie Edel Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Other Neuroscience and Neurobiology Commons Recommended Citation Edel, Katelyn Marie, "An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities" (2015). Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. 847. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/847 This Honors Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities A Capstone Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program at Syracuse University Katelyn Marie Edel Candidate for Bachelor of Arts and Renée Crown University Honors May 2015 Honors Capstone Project in Neuroscience Capstone Project Advisor: ___________________________ William Peace, Professor in the Renée Crown University Honors Program Capstone Project Reader: ____________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies in Nursing Ethics Fourth Edition
    CASE STUDIES IN NURSING ETHICS FOURTH EDITION Sara T. Fry, PhD, RN Brewster, Massachusetts Robert M. Veatch, PhD Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics Washington, DC Carol Taylor, PhD, RN Georgetown University Center for Clinical Bioethics Washington, DC 80319_FMXx_ttlpg.indd 1 6/24/10 3:31 PM World Headquarters Jones & Bartlett Learning Jones & Bartlett Learning Jones & Bartlett Learning 40 Tall Pine Drive Canada International Sudbury, MA 01776 6339 Ormindale Way Barb House, Barb Mews 978-443-5000 Mississauga, Ontario L5V 1J2 London W6 7PA [email protected] Canada United Kingdom www.jblearning.com Jones & Bartlett Learning books and products are available through most bookstores and online booksellers. To contact Jones & Bartlett Learning directly, call 800-832-0034, fax 978-443-8000, or visit our website, www.jblearning.com. Substantial discounts on bulk quantities of Jones & Bartlett Learning publications are available to corporations, professional associations, and other qualified organizations. For details and specific discount information, contact the special sales department at Jones & Bartlett Learning via the above contact information or send an email to [email protected]. Copyright © 2011 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. The authors, editor, and publisher have made every effort to provide accurate information. However, they are not responsible for errors, omissions, or for any outcomes related to the use of the contents of this book and take no re- sponsibility for the use of the products and procedures described.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Law & Policy Brief
    Volume 1, Issue 2 Fall 2007 HHEALTHEALTH LLAWAW PPOLICYOLICY The Health Care Crisis in America: 2 &Is Universal Healthcare the Solution to Our Problems? Charisse Y. Gates The Legal and Moral 12 Implications of Growth Attenuation Meryl Eschen Mills Where the Action is: 24 Innovative State Health Care Initiatives Nalini K. Pande CAFTA-DR, TRIPS, and Pharmaceuticals 28 Jennifer Cadena The ERISA Roadblock: Can States Overcome ERISA 34 Preemption and Enact Meaningful Health Care Reforms? Sabrina Dunlap The ‘Benghazi Six’ and International 42 Medical Neutrality in Times of War and Peace Johanna Michaels Kreisel COLUMNS 51 AULawBook.indd 1 12/10/07 7:22:49 AM Health Law & Policy 2007-2008 Staff EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Georgiana Avramidis Jennifer Cadena Gabrielle A. Mulnick SENIOR ARTICLES EDITOR Alexander J. Weber MANAGING EDITORS Vashti Mercado Rebecca L. Wolf SENIOR STAFF Bridget Behling Jenny M. Knopinski Eduardo Pezo Jessica E. Smith JUNIOR STAFF Sherine B. Abdul-Khaliq Biswajit Chatterjee Chandana Kolavala William N. Papain Jillanne M. Schulte ADVISOR Corrine Parver, Esq. Practitioner-In-Residence and Executive Director, Health Law Project LL.M. Program on Law & Government COVER DESIGN Cesar Lujan Health Law & Policy (HLP) is a publication of American University’s Washington College of Law (WCL) and the Health Law Project LL.M. Program on Law & Government. No portion of this publication may be reprinted without express permistion of HLP. Views expressed herein do not reflect thos of HLP or WCL. AULawBook.indd 2 12/10/07 7:22:49 AM LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Health Law & Policy Reader: On behalf of the Editorial Board, it is with great enthusiasm that we present our second issue of Health Law & Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • P R a X I S Where Reflection & Practice Meet
    P R A X I S Where Reflection & Practice Meet VOLUME 15 In Honor of the Advocates, Teachers, Clients, and Scholars from Whom We Have Come by This Knowledge Editorial Sam Foist Swart .........................................................................….......….................................................................3 Articles Mindfulness-Based Psychotherapy with HIV Patients Zoya Abdikulov …............................................................................................................................……..................4 Meeting the Torture Survivor and Asylum Seeker: Directions for Clinical Treatment and Political Advocacy Margaret J. Hunter, Brittany Austin, and Garrett Gundlach, SJ.…….……………………....................................11 Treating Borderline Personality in Adolescence Using CAT: Adapting HYPE into an Interprofessional Model Alyssa Jesberger, Kathy Moriarty, Nicole Weinstein, and Rebecca Witheridge ………..............………................ 21 Clinical Implications for Working with Couples Experiencing Infidelity Kristen Okrzesik………………………………………………………………………..........……......................................30 A Theological Reclamation of Feminine Icons in Latin@ Culture: An Empowerment Model Lorena Ornelas …...……………............................…........…….…………………...…………………… ………...36 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Bobbi Marie Pollard ............................................................................…….......….................................................44 Polyamory: The Clinical Importance
    [Show full text]
  • Pain and Surgery in the Ashley X Case
    Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2009, Vol. 37, No. 1 & 2, pp. 63-90 Cutting Edge Treatment: Pain and Surgery in the Ashley X Case Dick Sobsey John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre University of Alberta Pain and surgery are phenomena that have frequently been mentioned in the discussions of the Ashley X case. This article describes how pain and surgery have been used selectively to argue for or against the Ashley X procedures. Few if any of the many publications discussing the merits of the Ashley-X procedures can be said to strike a reasonable balance between the pros and cons of the procedures. This lack of balance and extreme polarization may result in part from the lack of precedents and weak research foundation for making decisions around this kind of treatment. In “the Unkindest Cut of All, “ Heidi Janz (2009, this volume) describes how surgery and pain were constructed in discussions of the killing of Tracy Latimer. Surgery is described as an invasive torture that mutilates the body with little prospect of relief and likely to result in catastrophic complications. While the primary purpose of the surgery proposed for Tracy Latimer was to relieve pain, there was little discussion of surgery’s role in mitigating pain and great emphasis on the role of surgery as a cause of pain. In short, those who supported the killing of Tracy Latimer did so because they believed that the surgery prescribed to relieve her pain was actually a fate worse than death. This paper explores images of pain, suffering, and surgery in another case involving a child with severe disabilities, the Ashley X case.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Ashley Treatment: a Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2020 Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach Allison Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Allison, "Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach" (2020). CMC Senior Theses. 2421. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2421 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach submitted to Professor Alex Rajczi by Allison Hill for Senior Thesis Spring 2020 May 9, 2020 1 Acknowledgements I would like to begin by acknowledging my late father for piquing my interest in navigating justice for people with disabilities. Even before I was enrolled at Claremont McKenna or had delved into the fields of bioethics and Philosophy, my dad was a strong advocate for working to ensure that people with disabilities had access to resources that they needed in order to achieve similar feats as people without disabilities. I really admired that about him, and his willingness to support a community that was so far from his own, and I feel proud that I wrote my thesis on a topic that is still extremely relevant in terms of examining justice.
    [Show full text]
  • HSC/PHL 312 ETHICS of HEALTH CARE > Syllabus | Concourse
    Bachelor's · Health Science · Health Sciences HSC/PHL 312 ETHICS OF HEALTH CARE FALL I - 8 WEEK 2021 Section All 3.00 Credits 08/30/2021 to 10/24/2021 Modified 08/31/2021 Description This interdisciplinary course guides students through a systematic analysis of contemporary ethical issues in health care and human services. Students will use ethical theories, principles, and codes to develop ethical decision-making processes for addressing difficult ethical dilemmas that are often encountered by professionals in human services and healthcare fields. As legal policies and historical considerations often underpin ethical issues, students will become conversant in pertinent policies to better understand the complexities of the ethical issues encountered by professionals. COURSE OUTLINE I. Introduction to Moral Theory and Analysis 1. Introduction to critical thinking and informed opinion 2. Foundational theories 3. Differentiating between moral, ethical and legal reasoning II. Professional Ethics, Bioethics and the Tools of Ethical Decision Making 1. Principles of Bioethics 2. Ethical decision making tools 3. Moral Distress III. Ethical Codes 1. Professional Codes and Oaths: Healthcare Professional 2. Professional Codes and Oaths: Human Service Professionals 3. Human Service Professionals: An Introduction to ACA Ethical Standards IV. Provider-Patient Relationships and Patients’ Rights 1. Truth telling 2. Confidentiality and privacy 3. Patient Rights and Informed Consent V. Decision Making for Those Without Capacity 1. Withholding, withdrawing artificial treatments 2. Advance Directives 3. Surrogate decision making standards 4. Minors and Healthcare Decision Making Authority VI. End of Life Controversies 1. Right to Die? and assisted suicide 2. Brain death and disorders of consciousness 3.
    [Show full text]