Case Study: Our Pregnant Daughter Didn't Want This

Case Study Our Pregnant Daughter Didnt Want Thisby Tarris Rosell P

What should be done now for Janet and her parents, and on what grounds? What values underlie the statute making a pregnant woman’s healthcare treatment declarations of “no effect” while pregnant? Do you agree or disagree with this statute, and on what grounds? What decision would you be making as Janet’s parental surrogate, and why? Ought someone to be a surrogate for Janet’s fetus, or not?

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Janet presents a complex intersection of medical ethics, legal statutes, family values, and individual autonomy. Immediately after her accident, Janet’s advance directives indicated her desire to decline life-sustaining treatments in the event of a persistent vegetative state (PVS). However, the legal framework in Kansas complicates this scenario, especially considering her pregnancy. According to Kansas statute (KSA 65-28, 103, (4)B), the directives of a pregnant woman may be overridden during her pregnancy, which raises profound ethical challenges about balancing maternal autonomy with fetal rights.

Given the circumstances, the immediate priority should be to honor Janet’s previously expressed wishes regarding her healthcare decisions, particularly her directive to refuse artificial nutrition, hydration, and life-supported interventions in a PVS state. Her advance directives were prepared with informed consent and reflect her values and wishes, which are ethically significant. The legal challenge arises because the statute appears to nullify her directive during pregnancy, potentially mandating continuation of life-sustaining treatments despite her stated preferences. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach involving legal counsel, ethics consultation, and medical professionals is essential to interpret insurance the statute aligns with the Constitutionally and ethically established rights of the patient.

From an ethical standpoint, respect for autonomy is paramount, but legal statutes may limit its application in cases involving fetal life. The principle of respect for autonomy requires honoring Janet’s wishes, especially since her directives are clear and were made with due diligence. Nevertheless, the statute’s intent likely aims to balance maternal rights with fetal interests, considering the moral weight ascribed to fetal life in the legal context. Therefore, a court or ethics committee's intervention might be necessary to reconcile Janet’s directives with the legal constraints, possibly advocating for a temporary legal stay or seeking a constitutional review of the statute concerning maternal autonomy rights.

As Jeff, Janet’s parental surrogate, the decision to follow her advance directives must be based on respecting her autonomy and prior expressed wishes. Transparency and consistency with her values are essential. If the laws suggest overriding her directives solely due to her pregnancy, this conflicts with core bioethical principles of autonomy and beneficence. In this context, advocating for her end-of-life preferences aligns with respecting her dignity and prior informed choices. An ethical approach would involve challenging the legal restrictions—either through legal avenues or medical ethics channels—to honor her expressed wishes, especially given her professional background and previous engagement with end-of-life planning.

Regarding surrogate decisions for Janet’s fetus, ethically, this raises the question of whether fetal interests should supersede maternal preferences. Most ethical frameworks prioritize maternal autonomy unless there is clear and compelling evidence that fetal life warrants overriding adult rights, particularly in the context of a pregnancy where the woman has expressed her healthcare wishes. Therefore, assigning a surrogate for the fetus independently from Janet’s wishes would be ethically controversial and generally not justifiable unless the fetus’s rights are protected within a legal framework that also considers maternal rights fairly.

In summary, the appropriate course of action involves advocating for Janet’s prior healthcare directives, challenging the legal statute’s override of her autonomy, and ensuring her dignity is preserved. Legal and ethical considerations must be balanced with respect for her autonomy, her prior wishes, and the societal values underlying maternal rights and fetal interests. Ultimately, the focus should remain on honoring Janet’s expressed preferences, provided the legal context allows, and seeking judicial or ethical review to uphold her autonomy.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Capron, A. M. (2010). The pregnant patient's right to refuse treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 280-281.
• Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA). (n.d.). KSA 65-28, 103, (4)B. Retrieved from https://www.kslegislature.org.
• Katz, J. (2017). Health care law and ethics. Oxford University Press.
• O'Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Rubin, S. (2012). End-of-life decision-making in the pregnant patient: Ethical and legal issues. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120(3), 737–741.
• Spector, R. E. (2011). Cultural Competence in Health Care: A Guide for Family Medicine. Family Medicine, 43(2), 131-137.
• Sulmasy, D. P. (2007). The ethics of pregnancy and maternal-fetal conflicts. The Ochsner Journal, 7(4), 211-218.
• Thomson, J. J. (1979). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(1), 47-66.
• Williams, M. (2006). Ethical aspects of end-of-life care in pregnant women. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(4), 226-229.