I am honestly unsure of this case's questions. I want to say if the success is minimal then it should not be done unless it has a high rate of success with minimal consequences. On the other hand, what if this child was the one in a million where the treatment did work? Are the parents willing to take the chances and risk their child the complications of this treatment, and the great possibility of failure of the treatment. What is the childs chances of survival with and without the treatment? There are a lot more details that need to be taken into consideration before a decision can be made. I personally believe we should have free health care, however this will not happen any time soon. If we had free healthcare then yes the society should front the medical expenses of the child, however without free healthcare I am afraid the society should not be expected to front the money as this is unfair to others out there with the same or smiliar conditions. It would ensure chaos among many people due to jealousy. I believe the parents have the right to choose whatever treatment they so deem adequate for their child but they need to consider every detail of the treatment and other treatments.
I think that the best treatment decision in this case is not to go ahead with the bone marrow transplant. Not only does it have a small chance for success but the child will only be alleviated from only one of his problems. I think that palliative care would be the best next move. Bobbie C is not getting better, has not desire to eat, will be on oxygen for the rest of his life, and most likely will have compromised mental functions. He is also a drain on medicaid. The money that was used on Bobbie could be put to use in a million other ways that could help and save many of people.
All I am going to say about this one is that sometimes in the medical field returning the pt to what we consider "normal" is not an option. Sometimes the patients who are really sick and cannot be saved, sometimes death is the only good outcome, as sad as that seems.
This is a very hard decision. As Katie and Christy said palliative care may be the best option for this patient. The parents and medical staff need to think of quality vs. quantity. Bobbie C has already spent all of his life undergoing treatment for his medical conditions. There is only so much more than can be done. The money being spent on him with his Medicaid is substantial. The decision is a hard decision, and I think even though I voiced my opinion it would be a very hard decision not to do everything in your power to try to save your child. This includes treating his conditions at all costs.
I do not agree with what the others have said. I think the procedure should be performed if it is the best chance of survival for the patient. Unfortunately, with the way our healthcare system is set up, sometimes society has to bear the burden of large bills but that does not mean that the patient does not deserve treatment, regardless of his medical or mental issues. The parents do have the right to reject or insist upon further treatments, but society has no right to dictate what medical decisions are made in this case.
I think it is morally tight and okay to perform bone marrow transplant, even though it is said that it might alleviate just one of Bobbie's problems. I think he deserves medical care despite the medicaid or the cost. Therefore the society should help 'shoulder' such expense because it shall have helped saved the infant's life. Health care systems are so different in so many places and it might seem as a burden on the society but it is a way of saving one of your own!! The parents should never give up, especially if there are several ways/therapies that could be pursued to help save the life of this infant. They cannot also insist on the therapies if they are costly (which they are) and cannot afford them. It is a very hard decision seriously!!
I think that if the family and doctors agree the procedure should be done. Even though it may only help one problem, it still is making that child better than they were before. I think with the whole society worried about money this becomes a big deal. I believe it is the parent's choice to reject or insist on other therapies. If the parents can pay for it, then go ahead but if they disagree I also think that is ok too.
The proper treatment decision in my opinion is to not do the surgery and discontinue all other surgeries and treatments. I believe you should not make the child suffer any more than he already has. I believe the society should be expected to 'shoulder' such an expense. I also believe the parents have a right to reject aggression therapies or to insist on them if and only if they know every part of the treatment and all the possible results (negative and positive).
Alright, I could go either way with this one. If this was my child i would have to perform the surgery on the child because i would want the baby in my life. But coming from an outside view, I would also say to no do the surgery because the baby has a small chance of success in the surgery and that is only one small thing to all the things that are wrong with him. So i really don't know what i would do here. I believe that the parents do have the right to reject further therapies or insist them to be done because obviously they are too little to make decisions for themselves, so therefore, let the parents do it.
I believe that if the parents want to go on with the treatment then yes, it should be done regardless of his possible mental or physiological compromise or the fact that society would have to shoulder the financial burden. However, I think in the healthcare field we need to be clear about expectations with clients. Bobbie’s parents need to understand that this isn’t a fix all for him and like some other classmates have discussed consider the quality of his life over the quantity because he has spent his entire life fighting something that he might not be able to overcome. Overall I do believe that the ultimate choice on whether or not to go on with the procedure is up to the parents. If it was my choice to make I believe I would do anything to save my child if possible but I hope that if he stood no chance of survival that I could say no to the procedure as to spare him suffering and instead give him the best palliative care possible.
I think that the decision belongs to the parents. If they are willing to risk an experimental procedure that has a low chance for success then they should do it, I know I would if it were my child. On the other hand would the parents be making the right choice in doing so if it is only going to fix or improve one of his multiple conditions. The child will still be suffering with many illnesses. I agree with what was said about sometimes death may be the best outcome for some patients, but I also agree that it is not society's decision who receives what treatments because they may have to pay for the cost. I think the parents reserve the right to refuse or insist on treatments. It's their child so who else would have that right other than the parents? I think the questions the parents would have to ask before making those decisions are do we want to treat our child, but watch him suffer more.... or do we want to lose our child, but ease his pain and suffering?
As an outsider of this situation, my decision would to not go ahead with the treatment. The compliations and failure rate outweighs the good that can come from the procedure, especially because it would only treat one of Bobbie C's many problems. I believe the parents in this situation have the right to reject further aggressive therapies and also to insist on them. The final decision is theirs. Although I can say right now that I would not go through with the treatment, I can imagine that it would be a different situation if I were actually Bobbie C's mother, given that I would probably want to do everything in my power to save my child's life or relieve him of his pain.
If Bobbie was my child, I would want the best for him, but I wouldn’t truly know how to answer the question on should we go ahead with the treatment or not, unless I was currently at that time. I say right now that I wouldn’t go ahead with the treatment because of the small outcome it would work. There is also that chance that it would only treat one of the many things that is going wrong with Bobbie. I know it’s hard to think I would let my own child die, but if there was nothing that would raise him to the level of normality then making his life an easier place is what I will be focused on. Then again, my opinion would possibly change if I wasn’t able to have another child and wanted to try my best in saving the only one that I had.
Brittany Buechel: I believe the proper treatment decision for this patient is hospice and paliative care. Hospice can help with comforting the infant and the family. Of course, if I were the parents in this situation, I would want the bone marrow transplant done for my child. But, there should be a time when the healthcare team steps up and talks to the family in this type of situation. This is no type of life for a 6-month old, nor is this a life for the parents. If hospice and paliative care can help with comforting the child and parents (which they can) then that should be the treatment option. With all of the medical problems that Bobbie has, he needs some comfort in his life. Society should not really have a say in how the money is being spent, especially when talking about a child. I could care less if all of my tax money was going towards to save the lives of children, I'd rather my money be spent that way. For a society to put a limit on the cost of healthcare for children blows my mind away. The parents do have a right to reject and insist further therapies, they are the parents of the child. But, I believe the parents should be highly educated on their child's outcome, quality of life, and their quality of life. If the paritnes are not educated, then they do not know what the outcomes are of all the procedures, they do not know how this will affect their child in the long run if any of the procedures do work. All parents are concentrated on getting their child better and back to normal and sometimes that is just now possible. In this case, a lot of education is needed as well as other personnel such as hospice for paliative care.
Since the bone marrow has a minimal chance of being beneficial to the infant I would have to agree with Brittany and say that hospice and pallitive care are the proper treatment. There would be no quality of life for that infant if he went through that procedure. There is no question that society should shoulder this type of expense. The idea of the child being physiologically and mentally compromised should be even a more reason for society to contribute and should not make that child any less deserving of help. I think the parents have a right to reject certain therapies because they are the parents and also if the parents understand the therapy and the risks, benefits, and outcomes of the therapy. Parents want to do everything for their child but sometimes not doing something such as a procedure because it may be more harmful than beneficial is doing everything.
I think that the doctor and parents need to decide what is best for the child. If they agree that the best chance is surgery, then surgery should happen. I agree with many others saying that if the surgery's benefits are minimal, that I probably wouldn't go through with it. They should make the child feel as comfortable as possible through the hard times. I think society should have an open mind and caring heart to shoulder the expense.
I believe the decision ultimately rests on the parent's shoulders. At this point the baby has so many problems it will most likely die, but if the parents find it fit to proceed with the treatment then it should be done. At this point they are doing all they can to save the baby's life. I think any parent would do the same to try and save the life, but personally at some point its just too much. I would not place that much pain and suffering on a baby. Ultimately the deciion rests on the parents. The doctor can advise but he is at the command of the parents.
The proper treatment decision is uncertain in my opinion. There is no correct answer. Yes it is good to help solve one of the problems of this child. but He has so many more. I do think they should do it though. If this child was in their teens would it be easier to "shoulder such an expense" maybe. But it is not this child's fault so I do not think they should be denied treatment.
I am honestly unsure of this case's questions. I want to say if the success is minimal then it should not be done unless it has a high rate of success with minimal consequences. On the other hand, what if this child was the one in a million where the treatment did work? Are the parents willing to take the chances and risk their child the complications of this treatment, and the great possibility of failure of the treatment. What is the childs chances of survival with and without the treatment? There are a lot more details that need to be taken into consideration before a decision can be made. I personally believe we should have free health care, however this will not happen any time soon. If we had free healthcare then yes the society should front the medical expenses of the child, however without free healthcare I am afraid the society should not be expected to front the money as this is unfair to others out there with the same or smiliar conditions. It would ensure chaos among many people due to jealousy. I believe the parents have the right to choose whatever treatment they so deem adequate for their child but they need to consider every detail of the treatment and other treatments.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best treatment decision in this case is not to go ahead with the bone marrow transplant. Not only does it have a small chance for success but the child will only be alleviated from only one of his problems. I think that palliative care would be the best next move. Bobbie C is not getting better, has not desire to eat, will be on oxygen for the rest of his life, and most likely will have compromised mental functions. He is also a drain on medicaid. The money that was used on Bobbie could be put to use in a million other ways that could help and save many of people.
ReplyDeleteAll I am going to say about this one is that sometimes in the medical field returning the pt to what we consider "normal" is not an option. Sometimes the patients who are really sick and cannot be saved, sometimes death is the only good outcome, as sad as that seems.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very hard decision. As Katie and Christy said palliative care may be the best option for this patient. The parents and medical staff need to think of quality vs. quantity. Bobbie C has already spent all of his life undergoing treatment for his medical conditions. There is only so much more than can be done. The money being spent on him with his Medicaid is substantial. The decision is a hard decision, and I think even though I voiced my opinion it would be a very hard decision not to do everything in your power to try to save your child. This includes treating his conditions at all costs.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with what the others have said. I think the procedure should be performed if it is the best chance of survival for the patient. Unfortunately, with the way our healthcare system is set up, sometimes society has to bear the burden of large bills but that does not mean that the patient does not deserve treatment, regardless of his medical or mental issues. The parents do have the right to reject or insist upon further treatments, but society has no right to dictate what medical decisions are made in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think it is morally tight and okay to perform bone marrow transplant, even though it is said that it might alleviate just one of Bobbie's problems. I think he deserves medical care despite the medicaid or the cost. Therefore the society should help 'shoulder' such expense because it shall have helped saved the infant's life. Health care systems are so different in so many places and it might seem as a burden on the society but it is a way of saving one of your own!! The parents should never give up, especially if there are several ways/therapies that could be pursued to help save the life of this infant. They cannot also insist on the therapies if they are costly (which they are) and cannot afford them. It is a very hard decision seriously!!
ReplyDeleteI think that if the family and doctors agree the procedure should be done. Even though it may only help one problem, it still is making that child better than they were before. I think with the whole society worried about money this becomes a big deal. I believe it is the parent's choice to reject or insist on other therapies. If the parents can pay for it, then go ahead but if they disagree I also think that is ok too.
ReplyDeleteThe proper treatment decision in my opinion is to not do the surgery and discontinue all other surgeries and treatments. I believe you should not make the child suffer any more than he already has. I believe the society should be expected to 'shoulder' such an expense. I also believe the parents have a right to reject aggression therapies or to insist on them if and only if they know every part of the treatment and all the possible results (negative and positive).
ReplyDeleteAlright, I could go either way with this one. If this was my child i would have to perform the surgery on the child because i would want the baby in my life. But coming from an outside view, I would also say to no do the surgery because the baby has a small chance of success in the surgery and that is only one small thing to all the things that are wrong with him. So i really don't know what i would do here. I believe that the parents do have the right to reject further therapies or insist them to be done because obviously they are too little to make decisions for themselves, so therefore, let the parents do it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the parents want to go on with the treatment then yes, it should be done regardless of his possible mental or physiological compromise or the fact that society would have to shoulder the financial burden. However, I think in the healthcare field we need to be clear about expectations with clients. Bobbie’s parents need to understand that this isn’t a fix all for him and like some other classmates have discussed consider the quality of his life over the quantity because he has spent his entire life fighting something that he might not be able to overcome. Overall I do believe that the ultimate choice on whether or not to go on with the procedure is up to the parents. If it was my choice to make I believe I would do anything to save my child if possible but I hope that if he stood no chance of survival that I could say no to the procedure as to spare him suffering and instead give him the best palliative care possible.
ReplyDeleteI think that the decision belongs to the parents. If they are willing to risk an experimental procedure that has a low chance for success then they should do it, I know I would if it were my child. On the other hand would the parents be making the right choice in doing so if it is only going to fix or improve one of his multiple conditions. The child will still be suffering with many illnesses. I agree with what was said about sometimes death may be the best outcome for some patients, but I also agree that it is not society's decision who receives what treatments because they may have to pay for the cost. I think the parents reserve the right to refuse or insist on treatments. It's their child so who else would have that right other than the parents? I think the questions the parents would have to ask before making those decisions are do we want to treat our child, but watch him suffer more.... or do we want to lose our child, but ease his pain and suffering?
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider of this situation, my decision would to not go ahead with the treatment. The compliations and failure rate outweighs the good that can come from the procedure, especially because it would only treat one of Bobbie C's many problems. I believe the parents in this situation have the right to reject further aggressive therapies and also to insist on them. The final decision is theirs. Although I can say right now that I would not go through with the treatment, I can imagine that it would be a different situation if I were actually Bobbie C's mother, given that I would probably want to do everything in my power to save my child's life or relieve him of his pain.
ReplyDeleteIf Bobbie was my child, I would want the best for him, but I wouldn’t truly know how to answer the question on should we go ahead with the treatment or not, unless I was currently at that time. I say right now that I wouldn’t go ahead with the treatment because of the small outcome it would work. There is also that chance that it would only treat one of the many things that is going wrong with Bobbie. I know it’s hard to think I would let my own child die, but if there was nothing that would raise him to the level of normality then making his life an easier place is what I will be focused on. Then again, my opinion would possibly change if I wasn’t able to have another child and wanted to try my best in saving the only one that I had.
ReplyDeleteBrittany Buechel: I believe the proper treatment decision for this patient is hospice and paliative care. Hospice can help with comforting the infant and the family. Of course, if I were the parents in this situation, I would want the bone marrow transplant done for my child. But, there should be a time when the healthcare team steps up and talks to the family in this type of situation. This is no type of life for a 6-month old, nor is this a life for the parents. If hospice and paliative care can help with comforting the child and parents (which they can) then that should be the treatment option. With all of the medical problems that Bobbie has, he needs some comfort in his life. Society should not really have a say in how the money is being spent, especially when talking about a child. I could care less if all of my tax money was going towards to save the lives of children, I'd rather my money be spent that way. For a society to put a limit on the cost of healthcare for children blows my mind away. The parents do have a right to reject and insist further therapies, they are the parents of the child. But, I believe the parents should be highly educated on their child's outcome, quality of life, and their quality of life. If the paritnes are not educated, then they do not know what the outcomes are of all the procedures, they do not know how this will affect their child in the long run if any of the procedures do work. All parents are concentrated on getting their child better and back to normal and sometimes that is just now possible. In this case, a lot of education is needed as well as other personnel such as hospice for paliative care.
ReplyDeleteSince the bone marrow has a minimal chance of being beneficial to the infant I would have to agree with Brittany and say that hospice and pallitive care are the proper treatment. There would be no quality of life for that infant if he went through that procedure. There is no question that society should shoulder this type of expense. The idea of the child being physiologically and mentally compromised should be even a more reason for society to contribute and should not make that child any less deserving of help. I think the parents have a right to reject certain therapies because they are the parents and also if the parents understand the therapy and the risks, benefits, and outcomes of the therapy. Parents want to do everything for their child but sometimes not doing something such as a procedure because it may be more harmful than beneficial is doing everything.
ReplyDeleteI think that the doctor and parents need to decide what is best for the child. If they agree that the best chance is surgery, then surgery should happen. I agree with many others saying that if the surgery's benefits are minimal, that I probably wouldn't go through with it. They should make the child feel as comfortable as possible through the hard times. I think society should have an open mind and caring heart to shoulder the expense.
ReplyDeleteI believe the decision ultimately rests on the parent's shoulders. At this point the baby has so many problems it will most likely die, but if the parents find it fit to proceed with the treatment then it should be done. At this point they are doing all they can to save the baby's life. I think any parent would do the same to try and save the life, but personally at some point its just too much. I would not place that much pain and suffering on a baby. Ultimately the deciion rests on the parents. The doctor can advise but he is at the command of the parents.
ReplyDeleteThe proper treatment decision is uncertain in my opinion. There is no correct answer. Yes it is good to help solve one of the problems of this child. but He has so many more. I do think they should do it though. If this child was in their teens would it be easier to "shoulder such an expense" maybe. But it is not this child's fault so I do not think they should be denied treatment.
ReplyDelete