A baby is born with anencephaly, or absence of the entire brain above the brainstem. The brainstem is intact, which means that the baby can breathe and have a heartbeat and blood pressure, but there is no chance for any human brain function or cognition, due to this birth defect. The health care team begins to educate the mother, since children with this deficit generally die shortly after birth. However, the mother is devoutly religious, and her minister has told her that if she prays hard enough to God, that God will work a miracle and her baby's brain will heal itself. She is insistent that all possible care be given to her baby, including a month-long stay in the ICU, constant care by a caregiver, regular brain scans, and other expensive modalities. The hospital, finding her adamant, asks the court for guardianship of the baby, with the medical plan to provide only maintenance care with no life-prolonging techniques until the baby dies.
What are the ethical issues are involved? How do the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmalfeasance, and justice manifest themselves? If you were called as an ethical consultant, what would you do/recommend?

A10-year-old girl suffered from a rare malignancy in her brain and around her spinal cord. she had surgery, and most of the tumor mass was removed, but residual tumor remained in the brain and around the spinal cord. the girl's doctors informed her parents that chemotherapy and radiation were possible treatment options but could cause serious problems such as sepsis, a permanent loss of iq and stature, and even death. the parents wished to proceed with the therapy. while their child was undergoing aggressive chemotherapy and radiation, the parents did independent research and read of several drugs being administered for cancer in other states that were unapproved by the federal drug administration (fda) and were illegal in their home state but were touted by physicians using them as miracle cures." furthermore, one of the girl's doctors released the girl's medical records to another physician to get a "second opinion" without informing the parents. this particular physician is a member of the same country club as the parents. he happens to share facts from the medical records with other members who end up telling the girl's parents. the couple sued their child's physician for failure to disclose alternative treatments, thus depriving them of informed consent. the couples also sued the child's physician for sharing their daughter's records in violation of the girl's privacy. how should the court rule in both cases? did the child's physician involved follow the law? did he act ethically in either situation? explain your answer. under the doctrine of informed consent, should a physician be responsible for informing patients of all treatment options, even if some of the treatments are illegal or not yet proven effective?

How can a failure to contain your emotions harm your advancement prospects?

Coagulation is inhibited by administration of: a. mannitol b. hespan c. vitamin k d. heparin