i have a two paper is in one case one is response paper from my partner and my first paper so now i need to put togeter and raise an argument about the case i put the direction and also the article

Morals and Medicine

A moral Issue in Medical Ethics

“When Parents disagree with doctors on a child’s treatment; who should have the final say”

Many cases involve making ethical decisions about medical treatments that may save a life, extend life or prove treatment that may or may not provide a cure. Both the medical profession and parents can involve in making decisions for a child's treatment. In the case of six-year-old Oshin Kiszko, both doctors and parents disagree about the treatment OShin should have. Oshin is very sick and has cancer. The medical doctors want to provide treatment that could cure his disease. His parents do not want him to get the treatment because of their son Oskin will suffer from the side effects and may have negative outcomes. They believe that the negative outcomes may lead to long-term health issues. Oshin's Parents want him to receive only palliative care which is similar to providing comfort cares in the months of life he has. In his case was debated in a western Australia Family court

There are many cases that pose a moral and medical ethics situation in which a difficult to choice between the parents and the doctor, in case of Oshin Okszko, from Australia. Oshin Okszko at the age of 6 his family was refusing to continue with his treatment. His treatment was receiving Chemotherapy for the treatment of brain cancer.

The main focus was respect for the family determination. In other words,

parents have the right to refuse treatment and that right had to be respected, but the main

issue was the doctors not listening the parents or guardians. They were the ones who had the

legal authority to make decisions for their son sickness. What was good about this case was the parents

was not in agreement with the doctor decision to continue his chemotherapy treatment.

The Western Australian family court had to rule or decide on this case. It ruled that he had to

continue with the treatment. The Australian family Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision

and ruled that Oshin must continue to undergo chemotherapy against the parents will.

In his case, the doctors, the hospital, the child agency and the Australian courts

were involved in decision making concerning his treatment. The action of the Supreme

Court rule to have he continue with treatment was based on the reason that the medical

judgement there was, was based on a prognosis of 50-60% chance that he could survive if he continued with the treatment.

The lawyers said the court had made its decision based on the projected quality of life, not just its preservation.

powerless, there is nothing safe about this treatment, they kill everything in that little body and then have to try to repair a lot of damage which granted the parents right to refuse lifesaving treatment, because “Strachan said the decision made him feel “When they said the brain tumor they found was medulloblastoma

The moral decisions people make are derived from what they view as being right or wrong.

people use to determine the morality of an action that people takes to their decision. The family of oshin oksizy want only the best overall results for their son.

Nobody knows if he would survive and judgement in regards to his case does not appear

to resolve his moral ethical. The morally right was for positive result to do good and not harm. It was morally required in this case because he was 6yrs. old. The dilemma steamed from the conflict of two principles. The first one having to do with respect

for autonomy which called for respecting the individual’s right determination. In medical terms,

this means that people are allowed to refuse medical treatment even if it is a form of life saving therapy.

The second principle directs the medical profession and hospitals to maximize benefits. They are

also directed to minimize any harm in caring for all patients. Even though Oshin would have to go

through 6 months of chemotherapy and experience discomfort, the forced medical treatment was to do

good, not harm. It is the obligation or duty of the health care profession to try to do all they can to save a life.

In the case of Oshin Kiszko, according to Moral and medical, the court had good reasons to rule

to have Oshin continue with his treatments. The court had good intentions to try to save the life of

Oshin. Intentions always come before motives. It was the intention of the court to consider that

He was a minor and could not decide for himself what was right. The motive to rule as they did was

based on the probability that he would be cured or survive. The motive was carried out in the action

or ruling. The Moral and medical ethics involved the court to be concern with the motive for the action

and not with the end result. There could be bad or good results from the action, but the main focus

was that there were good reasons for the action the court took in the case of Oshin.

The court had good intentions which was to give Oshin an opportunity through the

treatment of chemotherapy to be cured. They expected him to survive. The outcome of that

action was intended to get Oshin engaged in something that could save him life. It was

along the means and opportunity of fairness. In Kantian Moral Theory, the action was

universalizable. It was performed for the good of Cassandra. It was morally right for the

court to rule as they did.

In conclusion, the drive for an action is important just like the moral ethics.

Those who deal with moral ethical dilemmas need to consider what good there

actions will do and try to avoid doing harm through that action. There is complexity in

determining what to do so people need to look carefully at options to resolve a moral ethical

situation. There are codes of law that need to be respected such as in the case of Oshin Kiszko.

because he was a minor. Individuals need to develop moral reasoning in respond to

the moral dilemmas they have to face. Decisions about what is right or wrong are difficult to make.

The intent was the final goal of the motive of the court decision. The intent had more legal weight

compared to the motive in this case.