Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Emmanuel Kant's deontological theory
Emmanuel Kant's deontological theory
Emmanuel Kant's deontological theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Emmanuel Kant's deontological theory
Autonomy is very important in healthcare today. Patient autonomy and professional autonomy are two things to be considered in the medical profession. Patient autonomy is the right of the patient to make decisions regarding their own healthcare. Professional autonomy on the other hand is the right of the healthcare provider to turn down treatments that are unrelated to the condition of the patient and/or a concern for safety. Taking into consideration Rule Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology, Virtue Ethics and the Feminist Theory of power relationships, Dr. Brown should not renew Mr. Noble’s prescription for tranquillizers until there is evident proof that it is treating his condition.
Rule Utilitarianism is a theory set on rules followed by the norm. It is simply a belief that following a set of rules will maximize utility on the whole based on the course of action. Rule Utilitarianism is rather an impartial decision because it doesn’t make a judgment based on an individual situation for an immediate solution, but looks at it entirely. Dr. Brown should not write Mr. Noble another prescription for tranquilizers because he is not using it to cure his condition. Also it could lead to a series of side effects such as liver damage and physical and psychological dependence. Furthermore, the repetitive use of minor tranquilizers can lead to an abuse in its use causing him to become addicted. There is clear evidence that past therapy has reduced his trauma and stress, decreasing his chest pains. Mr. Noble shouldn’t have to use tranquillizers when he can get better naturally, instead of being a possible candidate for serious side effects. At the same time, according to Mr. Noble, the use of tranquilizers everyday is giving him immediate reli...
... middle of paper ...
...balance. Instead, to stabilize the power relationship, Dr. Brown has suggested that for the time being if he doesn’t prescribe the tranquilizers, while allowing Mr. Noble to experience therapy again, and if there really is a demonstrated basis for the efficacy of tranquilizers that he would prescribe it. This seems to be a fair balance between the doctor-patient relationship as Dr. Brown has suggested options to the patient that would rather benefit him; to get rid of his chest pains through a more safe manner.
In conclusion, Dr. Brown should not prescribe Mr. Noble the tranquilizers. Assessing the reasons as to why Dr. Brown should prescribe Mr. Noble the tranquilizers and also as to why he shouldn’t prescribe the tranquilizers, the latter is well supported by Rule Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology, Virtue Ethics and the Feminist Theory of power relationships.
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
Goldman presents the patient’s ranking value as fixed and decided with no ability to change. In actuality, a patient’s ranking of different values can change depending on the circumstances. It is clear that when a patient goes to visit the doctor, they are ranking their health over other concepts because, at that point in time, their health has become their primary concern and they want to preserve it so they can continue to enjoy their other liberties.
...rs. Boswell’s dilemma has provided a circumstance to investigate nonmaleficence and autonomy. Knowing and applying ethical principles, provides people involved in patient care guidelines that are deemed right or reasonable. It is essential to maintain the highest standard of care while taking into account all elements of the situation. Ultimately, nonmaleficence was obtained while also achieving to maintain and support autonomy.
Patient autonomy was the predominant concern during the time of publication of both Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel, and Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma's texts. During that time, the paternalistic model, in which a doctor uses their skills to understand the disease and choose a best course of action for the patient to take, had been replaced by the informative model, one which centered around patient autonomy. The latter model featured a relationship where the control over medical decisions was solely given to the patient and the doctor was reduced to a technical expert. Pellegrino and Thomasma and the Emanuel’s found that the shift from one extreme, the paternalistic model, to the other, the informative model, did not adequately move towards an ideal model. The problem with the informative model, according to the Emanuel’s, is that the autonomy described is simple, which means the model “presupposes that p...
Using Dr. Timothy Quill’s case in his article, “Death and Dignity”, where he prescribes barbiturates to his critically ill patient, the morality
Morrison, E. E. (2011). Justice for Patients. In Ethics in Heatlh Administration-A Practical Approach for Decision Makers (p. 66). Sudbury, Massachusetts, United States of America: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Within public health, the issue of paternalism has become a controversial topic. Questions about the ethics of public health are being asked. The role of ethics in medical practice is now receiving close scrutiny, so it is timely that ethical concepts, such as autonomy and paternalism, be re-examined in their applied context (Med J Aust. 1994). Clinically, patients are treated on a one on one basis, but public health’s obligation is toward the protection and promotion of an entire population’s health. So, based on this difference, the gaping questions targeting public health now becomes, under what conditions is it right to intervene and override an individuals’ autonomy? And if so, is the paternalistic intervention justified? Part of the concern
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
In his essay, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism,” Alan Goldman discusses his argument against differentiation in the roles between physicians and patients. He says the physician may act against a patient’s will in order treat the patient in their best interest. Goldman makes his whole argument around the assumption that a person’s right to decide his or her future is the most important and fundamental right, saying, “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.” His claim is that most people agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest and there is an innate value in the freedom to determine their own future. On these principles, Goldman starts by discussing conditions under which paternalism may be justified.
The principle of autonomy states, that an individual’s decision must be respected in all cases, also an individual can act freely in accordance to their plan. For example, in a case where a patient and family demands to continue medical or surgical care and a physician want the patient to stop further treatment. In this case the patient’s choice will matter the most. According to the principle of autonomy it will be the patients and family choice whether to continue or discontinue treatment. The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her. These principles are what healthcare provider use to help and guide patients with the ...
Autonomy is identified as another professional value and one that the nurse must possess. Autonomy is the right to self-determination. Nurse’s respect the patient’s right to make a decision regarding their healthcare. Practical application includes, educating patients and their families on their choices, honoring their right to make their own decision and stay in control of their health, developing care plans in collaboration with the patient (Taylor, C. Lillis, C. LeMone, P. Lynn, P,
To perceive the autonomy of the patients we should not follow up with Mrs. Bernstein for her next exam, yet she mentions that she will take her chances with cancer, which is a decision that can cause self-harm. Therefore, Mrs. Bernstein autonomy can be overridden. So, Riley should follow up to go to the Community hospital or ask her to come in after they bring in the equipment. The ethical theory, virtue ethics “Excellence of a person’s character” can be applied to this case.
This involves incorporation of the decision of the patient whose fate is under consideration. This principle of autonomy leads to informed consent or refusal, whereby treatment should not be initiated in absence of approval by the patient except in cases of emergency. The law supports the principle as a form of justice, provided there is presence of concise evidence supporting the patient's decision. The principle of autonomy highlights the main aspect of the dilemma of withdrawal of life support mechanism, the wellbeing of the patient. Other principles that must be factored in with regards to the patient are the principles of non-maleficence and beneficence, which require that treatment administered must not inflict harmful effects but should have the patient's best interests at heart.
A patient who insists on receiving chemotherapy, despite going against medical advice, should be allowed to receive treatment for their terminal cancer. The decision to allow a patient to receive chemotherapy can be guided using the ethical principles of autonomy, truthfulness and informed consent. Autonomy, defined as a “ right to make independent decisions concerning one’s own life and well-being” includes four distinct components, describing autonomy as: “free action, effective deliberation, authenticity and moral reflection” (Yeo & Moorhouse, 1996). Autonomy as free action, defined as “being able to do what one wishes to do” (Yeo & Moorhouse, 1996), can be used to show that any decision a patient makes is their own personal right.