Cystic Fibrosis

Cystic Fibrosis

Cystic Fibrosis is the largest fatal genetic disease in the country, and North America today. Its victims only have an average lifespan of up to 31 years. It is an inherited disease in which one allele causes mucus in organs like the lungs, intestines, kidneys, stomach, and others, to become thick and sticky making the organ not function properly. Cystic Fibrosis is usually present the worst in the respiratory system, and the digestive tract. CF can only be obtained by this single defective gene on the number 7 chromosome. Symptoms of this disease are able to be caught pretty early, starting with frequent airway infections, constant coughing, wheezing, abnormal metabolism(excessive amounts of food, with no weight gain), smelly and large feces, and pneumonia. A high level of salt in perspiration is an easy way to tell if a person has this disease. Every new born child now has a 1 in 3,300 chance of getting this disease, with 1 out of every 29 people are carriers.

Since we do not know the family history of the father it is hard to tell if he is a carrier of the gene or not. If he is, and the mother is as well then there will be a 25% chance of the child being infected with the disease. 

The major ethical issues of the case are simply stated, but hard to carry out. The issue is if Sarah's healthcare for her CF should be terminated, to end her life within a year. This is one issue that has been heavily debated in the past. The stakeholders in the case, are Sarah, since she will be the one having pain for almost a year straight. Her parents are a stakeholder, because they will be having to "pull the plug" on her treatment and be losing

a daughter, and finally the doctor. The doctor is a stakeholder because he could be severely effected by this decision. If he stops treatment his license could be revoked, and his career could go down the drain.

The ethical questions confronting the stakeholders, and people in the case are several. First, is this something that will help out Sarah, and her disease? Second, will Sarah be in more or less pain if this step is taken? In the long run? In the short run? Third, Is this ethical by the doctors point of view? Fourth, is this ethical from a parents perspective to make this decision? Fifth, is it ethical for a minor to make their own decisions about heir own health? These are just a couple questions that are confronting everybody involved in the case. This case definitely addresses the issue of autonomy. Autonomy is independence. This is what this young girl is trying to gain. She wants her independence from the pain she is going through, and wants to live a life with no doctors visits, and make her last couple months happy. From the doctors and parents point of view is only where beneficence can come into play. They will be charitable by not making this girl suffer any longer. They are her care takers, and have a right to make sure she is happy, weather she will die soon or not. The issue of justice is a hard one to conquer in this case. With me being a pre law major it is hard to read this case. The justice will be right for the girl not to suffer anymore, but not in a sense she will be helped in her death. Even though her death will be prolonged to months, she is still being helped out by the doctor and her parents. This is a problem in today's society that is being held in the courts as we speak, ie. Doctor Kovorkian.

The doctor does not have many options in this case. This is a doctors worst nightmare as well. The options are to:1) keep the girl on medication, 2)stop her medication, and 3) refer her to another specialist. All of these options have consequences. If the doctor