Read the below Cases in Medical Ethics. from each case topic: Autonomy, Euthanas

Read the below Cases in Medical Ethics. from each case topic: Autonomy, Euthanasia, Assisted Reproduction, and Universal Healthcare. Answer the questions below the cases. Put some real thought and consideration into your answers and use complete sentences.
Case 1: Autonomy
A woman enters the emergency room with stomach pain. She undergoes a CT scan and is diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, a weakening in the wall of the aorta which causes it to stretch and bulge (this is very similar to what led to John Ritter’s death). The physicians inform her that the only way to fix the problem is surgically, and that the chances of survival are about 50/50. They also inform her that time is of the essence, and that should the aneurysm burst, she would be dead in a few short minutes. The woman is an erotic dancer; she worries that the surgery will leave a scar that will negatively affect her work; therefore, she refuses any surgical treatment. Even after much pressuring from the physicians, she adamantly refuses surgery. Feeling that the woman is not in her correct state of mind and knowing that time is of the essence; the surgeons decide to perform the procedure without consent. They anesthetize her and surgically repair the aneurysm. She survives, and sues the hospital for millions of dollars.
Questions for Case 1:
• Do you believe that the physician’s actions can be justified in any way?
• Is there anything else that they could have done?
• Is it ever right to take away someone’s autonomy? (Would a court order make the physicians’ decisions ethical?)
• What would you do if you were one of the health care workers?
CASE 2: Euthanasia
Case 1:
A woman enters the emergency room with stomach pain. She undergoes a CT scan and is diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm, a weakening in the wall of the aorta which causes it to stretch and bulge (this is very similar to what led to John Ritter’s death). The physicians inform her that the only way to fix the problem is surgically, and that the chances of survival are about 50/50. They also inform her that time is of the essence, and that should the aneurysm burst, she would be dead in a few short minutes. The woman is an erotic dancer; she worries that the surgery will leave a scar that will negatively affect her work; therefore, she refuses any surgical treatment. Even after much pressuring from the physicians, she adamantly refuses surgery. Feeling that the woman is not in her correct state of mind and knowing that time is of the essence; the surgeons decide to perform the procedure without consent. They anesthetize her and surgically repair the aneurysm. She survives, and sues the hospital for millions of dollars.
Questions for Case 1:
• Do you believe that the physician’s actions can be justified in any way?
• Is there anything else that they could have done?
• Is it ever right to take away someone’s autonomy? (Would a court order make the physicians’ decisions ethical?)
• What would you do if you were one of the health care workers?
CASE 3: Assisted ReproductionA married couple wishes to have a child; however, the 32 year old mother knows that she is a carrier for Huntington’s disease (HD). HD is a genetic disorder that begins showing signs at anywhere from 35-45 years of age. Its symptoms begin with slow loss of muscle control and end in loss of speech, large muscle spasms, disorientation and emotional outbursts. After 15-20 years of symptoms HD ends in death. HD is a dominant disorder which means that her child will have a 50% chance of contracting the disorder. Feeling that risking their baby’s health would be irresponsible, the couple decides to use in vitro fertilization to fertilize several of the wife’s eggs. Several eggs are harvested, and using special technology, only eggs that do not have the defective gene are kept to be fertilized. The physician then fertilizes a single egg, and transfers the embryo to the mother. Approximately 9 months later, the couple gives birth to a boy who does not carry the gene for the disorder.
• Is this a case of eugenics? “Eugenics” is defined as “the hereditary improvement of the human race controlled by selective breeding” (dictionary.com)
• Would it be acceptable for the parents to select for sex as well, or should they only select an embryo that does not have HD? How would this be different?
• Is it ethical for this couple to have a baby when the mother could begin showings signs of HD when the baby is just a few years old?
• With this technology possible, would it be ethical for this couple to have a child without genetically ensuring it would not have the disease? What if we did not have this technology, would it be ethical for a known carrier to have a child? (If not, how far should this carry? a carrier for cystic fibrosis (which is recessive)?)
• Weighing everything we have discussed, do you believe the couple acted ethically?
CASE 4: Universal Health CareA mother brings her son into the emergency room during an asthma attack. Though both of his parents work, they cannot afford medical insurance for themselves or him. They also earn too much money to qualify for state or federal aid. He is treated for his asthma attack at the hospital and he and his mother leave. Two weeks later, they return to the hospital in a virtually identical scenario.
Questions for Case 1:
• Do you think that this boy is receiving adequate care?…Shouldn’t he be able to see a primary care physician before his condition gets so acute that he must visit the ER?
• Should everyone be entitled to a basic “minimum of health care”… or to the exact same health care?
• Do you think that health care is a right? If so, are we forced to honor this right?
• (If students answer “yes” to the above question) Is this right relative or universal? Does this right exist because of the wealth of the United States, or is it applicable everywhere? Is health care a luxury?
• Does having money entitle a person to better health care? (they may have worked harder for their greater wealth)