- “Courts and legislatures have been forced to look beyond the natural boundaries of life

and death to confront unsettling and legal and ethical choices: When should life-support
systems be stopped? When should they even be started? And who decides?”

- One thing I found interesting was that on the second page the doctor said that he would
take his chances with being thrown in jail and would give the man the blood transfusion.
In a different scenario where the man was different ages, his choice differed. He said that
if the man was 17 and said he wouldn’t accept the transfusion, the doctor would still
choose to give him the transfusion. However, if he were 45 years old, then he would
respect his wishes and move onto the next patient. I would maybe assume this is because
the man would have had more life experiences and would be more likely to make what he
believes is the better choice. If he was just 17, then he would probably be more likely to
just make an impulsive decision that he may or may not come to regret.

- Something else I noticed on the 2nd page in the first column was that the professor gave
the doctor more options regarding what he would do depending on what members of the
patient’s family said. He kept adding more people who said to not give him the
emergency transfusion, but he finally asked what the doctor would do if the wife begged
him to do a transfusion, even if the rest of the family said no. I found this to be interesting
because the doctor said that he would respect the family’s wishes if they asked not to do a
transfusion, but if just one person said yes to the transfusion, then he would do it. I
wonder if it’s because it was the wife who said yes, or if he would have done it if anyone
said yes. That isn’t something that’s discussed, but I found it to be an interesting
question. Whether or not the doctor would do it based on the person who asked for the
transfusion, or if he would just do it for anyone who asked him to.

- Another doctor was asked the same question and said that he would perform the
transfusion even if the patient told him not to. The judge agreed with this decision saying
that if the patient wasn’t asking for the transfusion that most likely wasn’t a normal
human response, and they could go into the details later. WHile it may be ethically and
legally wrong, it is still saving this man's life and will be helping him. WHile the fist
doctor said that he would do it for just one person who asked him to do it, the second
doctor said that he would do it regardless of whether someone did or didn’t ask him to do
it. While it may get him in trouble later, he was willing to do this to save the man's life,
and the judge agreed with him that it would be the right thing to do and that they would
be able to deal with the consequences at a later date. After this was said, the professor
continued to interrogate both the judge and the doctor saying that it wouldn’t necessarily
 be morally and/or ethically correct. However, both the doctor and the judge continued to
argue their position saying that it was up to them to make the decision because the man
may not be thinking correctly, may be in shock, and they need to do everything they can
to preserve his life.

- Further on, another question is posed, asking if the patient even really has any say at all.
One judge says that he doesn’t necessarily have the right to choose and use his religion in
this case as it isn’t necessarily applicable and won’t benefit him. On the other side,
another judge says that they have to respect his wishes, and the wishes of family
members. If everyone in the family says no to a blood transfusion, then he really believes
that there is no other option than to perform the blood transfusion. The judges disagree on
this because one believes that saving his life would override his and his loved ones
wishes, while the other believes that they have to respect the wishes of Bobby and his
family and that he has a right to make his own decision and the doctors would have to
respect that.

- Another situation is brought forward, debating whether or not religion is a part of the
problem. If Bobby isn’t denying the transfusion for religious reasons, then do they still
obey his wishes, if he just wants to die? Or in this case, do the doctors and the judges
make the decision to save his life or not? And another situation: What do they do if
Bobby’s wife is pregnant? DO they then leave Mary and the child fatherless and
husbandless, or do they perform the transfusion to help out Mary and the child in the
future? One judge says that you can never be completely sure whether or not it will be a
constitutional decision, but they have to try their best to make whatever decision they will
believe is the most correct and will help the most people.

- A few pages down one more situation regarding Bobby is brought up. THis time he is a
quadripalegic and asks them to not perform the blood transfusion, as he is not living life
to the fullest in his belief. Then what do the doctors decide to do? Do they make him
continue living life in this state that he isn't enjoying, or do they allow him to die,
potentially hurting those around him and ruining the lives of others. For a few more
pages, arguments and situations like these are brought up, discussing whether or not and
when would be the correct time to make these decisions and what would benefit the most
people from these decisions. Either obeying the wishes of the patient and their family, or
choosing what you believe to have the best outcome, even if it may not be what the
afflicted person wants.