Whether you're planning a career in medicine or simply interested in the ethical controversies often glossed over on popular television shows, the challenges presented in this book will undoubtedly be helpful.
Reading a book can help you examine your own values, or it can help you focus on the dizzying controversies unfolding in the "real world," or it can even lead to a pleasant debate with family or friends over a meal.
--- From "Entering"

If you don't know your true family history, you may have a child with a disease that could have been prevented.
And because she will unknowingly give her doctor an inaccurate family history, the doctor will likely underestimate the risks Linda faces, from early colon cancer to suicide.
You can imagine this too.
What if Linda isn't Fred's biological child but is a suitable kidney donor? In this situation, revealing that she's not his biological child could lead to Linda changing her mind and potentially jeopardizing Fred's health.
--- From "Aren't I Daddy's Daughter?"

Many who criticized Hellekant's admission asked this question:
Would a patient truly trust a doctor who was a murderer? Furthermore, wouldn't the medical school's decision to admit Hellekant over another applicant have harmed the public? If Hellekant were allowed to practice medicine, wouldn't it undermine trust in all doctors? According to New York Times contributor Laurence Altman, then-president of Karolinska University Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson referred the case to the school's ethics committee for guidance.
The president asked:
“Should educators and school administrators disclose to patients the past of a student with a criminal record?”
--- From "What if a murderer becomes a doctor?"

Diseases for which the United States permits mandatory quarantine include viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola, cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Some of these are easily treatable, but others have a short incubation period.
Almost all ethicists are not particularly concerned about the short-term quarantine of highly infectious individuals.
Most people who know how to discern reason would voluntarily accept such isolation in order to protect the public interest.
The truly troubling problem are asymptomatic carriers like Sandra, a child care worker, who have no treatment, or the rare cases who refuse necessary treatment and must be quarantined for long periods.
--- From "Should virus carriers be forcibly quarantined?"

When parents make decisions that are too outrageous, the courts can intervene according to the law.
However, all states recognize the right of parents to forgo vaccinations for medical reasons.
Many states also allow exceptions for objections based on religion or philosophy.
However, just because parents have the right not to vaccinate their children, that doesn't mean pediatricians have a legal or ethical obligation to continue to treat them.
--- From "Do I really need to get my child vaccinated?"

In routine medical practice, ventilators are usually used on a 'first come, first served' basis.
However, experts unanimously agree that this method should not be applied in the future when a flu pandemic occurs.
Rather, we should establish appropriate criteria for ventilator application and exclusion in such catastrophic situations.
The ethical debate at this point is not whether or not to classify patients by severity (severity classification seems to be a given), but rather who specifically should be excluded.
--- From "Who should we save and who should we give up?"

Advocates of donations with religious goals argue that such donors not only save the lives of certain groups of people, but also provide a breathing space for others on the waiting list to receive organs.
Because if Renewal provides a kidney to one Jewish patient, it means that one less person is on the waiting list for a non-Jewish kidney.
If there had been no renewal, these donors would not have donated any organs.
--- From "Should we give the organ to the star first?"

There have been at least ten cases in U.S. courts dealing with this issue.
In the first such case, Davis v. Davis in 1992, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the embryos in question were neither persons nor property, but belonged to a “provisional category of beings entitled to special respect because they have the potential to become persons.”
The majority of these trials sided with those opposed to implanting and carrying the embryos in question to term.
Still, some trials have ruled in favor of women who became infertile due to chemotherapy.
For these women, implanting stored embryos is the only way to become biological parents.

--- From "Who owns the embryo?"