Basically, the case of Li is very complicated and her decision may be supported as well as criticized. In this respect, it is primarily necessary to underline that the decision of Li inevitably involves ethical questions since euthanasia is quite an arguable concept.
Nevertheless, it is possible to support Li’s position. First of all, it should be said that Li is absolutely unable to lead an independent life. In fact, she totally relies on her mother and in the current situation she is absolutely helpless.
Consequently, without external support she cannot survive that naturally causes suffering Li cannot bear. This is why her decision seems to be logical. Furthermore, Li’s state of mind is normal. This means that she is conscious of her actions and she can take decisions independently from other people. In fact, it is her right to take such a decision and end her life and her sufferings. Finally, it should be said that Li has lost practically lost any hope for recovery and, in all probability, her state will not be better in the future.
On the other hand, it is possible to argue that such a decision is wrong and Li should not be euthanized. First of all, the modern medicine progress rapidly and there remains hope even when there are little chances for recovery. Also, euthanasia actually means a kind of suicide and normally it is necessary to prevent suicide because this act contradicts to basic moral norms. Finally, it is also necessary to take into consideration the position of her relatives because, once her mother has already persuaded her to keep living, so there remains a possibility that one of her brothers or sisters-in-law will convince her to change her mind and refuse from euthanasia.
Nevertheless, in spite of all counter-arguments, I would allow her to be euthanatized because I believe that it is her natural write to take decision concerning her future. Anyway, if she decided to commit suicide, she would definitely do it and it is only because of her disability this act involves other people and cannot be committed secretly.
The problem of using animals as a source for human organ transplants is very serious and disturbing problem. In actuality, the use of animals as a source for human organ transplant means the death of animals or, at any rate, the disability to continue the normal life.
In this respect, it seems to be not only cruel but also unjust to take animal organs for transplantation. For instance, human organs used for transplantation are also used but this procedure is extremely complicated and many people would have never agreed to give their organs for transplantation even though they could live a relatively normal life in the future. In the case of animals they are simply used as a material for human organ transplants that means that the life of animals is sacrificed for the sake of human life.
The latter apparently raises another problem: what is more important human or animal life because often without transplantation people are simply doomed to die. In such a situation, it is also inhuman to let a human die, when his/her life could be saved. From purely medical point of view, doctors apparently have to save the life of their patients.
Thus, the use of animals as a source for human organ transplants is the question that could not be ignored and it is necessary to develop and define concrete cases when animals could be used for this purpose. This means that it is necessary to use animals as source of human organ transplants only in the cases when there is a direct threat to the life of a patient, because it would be a crime to let the patient die if his/her life could be saved.
Obviously, the fact that pregnant women are typically excluded from research project is quite logical and justified because it is impossible to put under a threat the life and health of pregnant women and fetus. On the other hand, it is really impossible to find out possible effects of new drugs on fetus. In such a situation, it is necessary to rely on traditional to research of effects of new drugs. For instance, it is possible to taste drugs on animals. However, after such tests it is still necessary to model the reaction of human beings on the drug that is tested. In this regard, it is possible to attempt to use the development of new IT, namely it is necessary to develop new IT and software that could help forecast the effects of a drug on fetus, on the basis of information retrieved in the result of experiments on people and information concerning the process of development of fetus and state of a mother. Alternatively, it is possible to use the recent achievements of genetics and use embryos for experiments, though this variant may provoke even more serious bioethics problems.
Speaking about the study involving Truvada it should be said that it was quite arguable in regard to medical ethics.
In fact, from the point of view of the quantitative analysis and results of the research, there are no serious problems concerning its outcomes. At the same time, the methods and design of the research is highly arguable from ethical of view. To put it more precisely, the subjects of the research were defined as treatment naïve and this implies that they were not really conscious of the possible effects of the experiment. At any rate it is obvious that these patients could not be sure in the outcome of their treatment that is particularly dangerous in the case when they had not taken HIV meds before. Basically, the outcomes of this treatment could potentially dangerous for their health.
In such a situation, I would not recommend a member of my family asking a doctor to start Truvada treatment right away. At first glance, my decision may be a bit strange because the use of Truvada in the experiment had proved the safety of the medicament. However, I still have some apprehension concerning the further use of this medicament.
To put it more precisely, even though, there is a low percentage of patients that had side-effects, there still remains a risk that my relative would have some of side-effects. In the situation when he/she had not taken antiviral treatment before, it may expose his/her health to a serious threat because Truvada is considered to be one of the most effective medicaments tested. Consequently, there is a risk that other medicaments would not give positive results after the failure of the Truvada treatment.