Analysis Of Public Health Or Clinical Ethics 'By Onora O' Neill

In “Public health or Clinical ethics: Thinking beyond borders” by Onora O’Neill this paper will be critical review of her arguments that in the article she puts forth that public health helps a wider population is important point . She Argues that both public health and clinical cannot co-exist with one another not only in the western world but also in low-income countries. Her focus is that public health ethics needs to cross the borders and intervention needs to ‘measure up to the problem they address’. She also mentions that individual autonomy ought to not be the main focus because public health intervention proves the most effective in both rich and poor societies.

Onora O’Neill ‘public health or clinical ethics’ begins by stating how

Consequently, in Kant’s explanation of moral autonomy is that it can be no chances of freedom for one individual if that person acts without citation to all other moral agents. However, in ‘The four principle approach to Health care ethics’ article the author voiced one of the principles which was the respect of autonomy this means that a professional should respect the decision of a person, and their freedom to self-chosen plan. With this respect is to identify the individual’s capacities including their views to make certain choices and actions. Forcing someone to making a decision is ethically wrong because as professional they need to guide the patient not influence them into do something that may cause harm to the person without the intention to do so this is called non-maleficence of the four

It’s unrealistic that the consideration to identify reasonable justification for limiting individual autonomy to change unhealthy behaviour, this fails to give enough weight to alternate from infectious to chronic disease as foremost reason of mortality and morbidity. She made a valid point that medical ethics only work within the boundaries of state, and no disease is bounded by boundaries with societies and government keeping to themselves hoping that it does not come to your state is an impractical thought.

The issue is that she says that health policies need to account for obligation rather than right which is subjective and not a strong argument that she states because a human right approach points out the relationship in order to empower people to claim their rights and encourage the policy makers and governments to meet the obligation to create a better health system, for obligation to work it need to have right so that it can be established “who has to do what for