إعـــــــلان

تقليص
لا يوجد إعلان حتى الآن.

any help and answer for that case study ?????( about ethics)

تقليص
X
 
  • تصفية - فلترة
  • الوقت
  • عرض
إلغاء تحديد الكل
مشاركات جديدة

  • any help and answer for that case study ?????( about ethics)

    السلام عليكم ورحمه الله وبركاته


    عندي هذي الحاله ولازم اسوي عليها برزنتيشن ممكن المساعده


    Charlie Four Star, a young Native American female from Poplar, Montana, was born with a rare liver disease that left her unable to eat or digest food. Her condition was considered terminal unless she had an intestinal-bowel transplant that would cost approximately one million dollars. The problem the family encountered was that Medicaid considered the operation experimental and therefore not reimbursable. Intestinal-bowel transplants were not eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Charlie's grandmother summed up the family's attitude by saying: "Money is nothing compared to human life."
    The family fought with the government for over two years with no success. It wasn't until a then-new television investigative reporting program called "The Crusaders" intervened that some progress was made. Reporter Doug McConnell did a segment on this story. The program hired a lawyer to sue Medicaid, saying that the operation was essential and not experimental. A pioneer transplant surgeon, who promised to waive his fee, was brought in to review the case. He diagnosed Charlie's condition as portal hypertension and said that the window of opportunity for helping her was closing rapidly.
    This doctor approached Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and asked them to waive the normal $500,000 down payment for this type of surgery. The hospital declined saying that they could not afford to become a free care center and that this could risk the future of the program. A lot of children could die with the death of this program.
    In a sudden turn of events Medicaid finally agree that the operation was not experimental and agree to pay for it. At first the team could not find a hospital to perform the operation for the limited Medicaid fee. Finally, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center agrees to accept the limited fee.
    Charlie's case was publicized on television around the country, but it still took six weeks before a suitable donor was found. The sixteen-hour surgery was performed and Charlie received a new liver, small and large intestine, pancreas and spleen. It turned out to be the first five-organ transplant performed.
    Although Charlie faced a number of setbacks after the surgery, she returned home to eat solid food for the first time. She turned out to be the first child to survive a multiple organ transplant beyond six months.
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/A...ella_star.html

    Questions For Discussion

    1. The grandmother was quoted as saying: "Money is nothing compared to human life." If life is priceless, can we afford the cost?

    2. Is it right to give five organs to one person when five others could possibly benefit?

    3. Do you think the television show "The Crusaders" had any underlying motive for doing this story?

    4. Is it right for the media to intervene in situations like this?

    5. If Charlie only needed a liver and it came down to her or your grandmother, how should it be decided who gets it?

    6. Do you think they would have done this story if it were your grandmother in this situation?

    7. Do you consider this operation experimental? Was it ordinary care or extraordinary care?

    8. What was your reaction to the statement from Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh that: "We cannot become a free care centre or we would be forced to close our doors and then a lot of children might die."

    9. Is it right for the media to take on a cause of this type? What about others that do not have access to the media?

    10. Should a patient ever be allowed a second transplanted organ?


  • #2
    يمكن تكون أخي قدمت presentation بس أنا اليوم شفت الموضوع وقرأته وأحب أن أعطي رأيي.
    في أسئلة كتير من الناحية القانونية.أنا لا أعرف القانون تماما ولكن من ناحية القواعد وقيم الحياة أستطيع أن أقول..

    ان من حق الانسان المريض أن يجد له فرصة للعلاج لأي حالة مرضية تصادفه، وسواء كان طفلا صغيرا أو شابا أو عجوزا، يعني الحق بالحياة،كما قالت الجدة "Money is nothing compared to human life" وهذا الحق لا يجب أن يقف دونه عدم وجود الأموال للعلاج الى درجة الموت والسبب وجيه ولكنه تافه وهو الفقر، وهذا يمكن أن يحصل حتى في المجتمعات التي تدعي حقوق الانسان ولكنها تنظر بعين الربح والخسارة وهذا ما ظهر من موقف شركة التأمين والمستشفى بحيث لم يقبلا المريضة بحجج لا تبدو منطقية، سواء موقف شركة التأمين التي تجد أن العملية ليست أساسية ولا تريد أن تعالج المريضة أو المستشفى التي رفضت انزال فاتورة الاستشفاء لأنه لا يناسبها.
    ان تدخل وسائل الاعلام لاثارة هذه القضية، انا أجده ضمن واجب الاعلام الذي عليه أن يساعد في الوصول الى الأهداف النبيلة.
    ان سؤال أن تنقل لمريضة 5 أعضاء بالوقت الذي من الممكن أن ننقل عضو لكل مريض محتاج وننقذ به 5 أشخاص هو سؤال افتراضي، لأن المفروض في اختيار المريض يكون حسب الاولوية للحالة وحسب دراسة الحالة.
    وأمر آخر لا بد من الاشارة اليه هو أن زرع الأعضاء وعندنا 5 أعضاء فيه من التحضيرات الطبية قبل وبعد الزرع ومن تخفيض المناعة ما يعرّض المريض للخطر ، ومع هذا لا يمنع من أخذ فرصته بالعلاج.

    وبالنتيجة من علامات ضعف الدول أن يموت فيها مريض لأنه لا يملك أموال للعلاج.

    شكرا لهذا الموضوع الذي يوقفنا أمام أنفسنا.

    تعليق

    يعمل...
    X