Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism versus kantian ethics
Utilitarianism versus kantian ethics
Questions in biomedical ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient?
I would like use Rule utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to help determine what course of action could be morally justifiable in this case. Rule utilitarianism says “A person ought to act in accordance with the rule that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil, everyone considered.” (Mappes & Degrazia, 13) So according to rule utilitarianism, when one faces a moral dilemma one should map out the consequences of one’s action and then act in so as to produce the greatest net amount of utility or happiness. So if I was faced with a moral dilemma concerning whether or not I should cheat on an exam, I should follow the rule that creates maximum happiness, which in this case would be that I should not cheat because if every one in the world cheated on every exam then there wouldn’t be a need to take or give exams. There would no longer be a dependable system to gauge a student’s knowledge on a subject. Kantian deontology however follows a different path. According to this moral theory, consequences are of no matter and duty is what is important. (Lecture, 01/27) Just as in rule utilitarianism, Kant says that an act can be considered morally right when it is in observance with a rule. This rule, however, must satisfy the conditions of what he calls the categorical imperative. There are three formulations of the categorical imperative (Lecture 01/27) that each maxim or rule must adhere to. Firstly, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a u...
... middle of paper ...
...rity over a patient, since it is the patient who is directly affected by any course of treatment taken, the final decision should remain in the hands of the patient. The risk of losing patient autonomy by allowing doctors a free hand with what they think is the correct treatment seems to be too high. The patient should have the right to accept or reject any course of treatment so long as that decision is made with informed consent. Thus it would be ethically incorrect for Dr. Lowell to try and coerce her patient into following her recommended treatment. However, I think that Dr. Lowell would not be morally incorrect in trying to explain to Mrs. Jackson about the details of the treatment. Perhaps Mrs. Jackson has a fear of losing her hair during chemotherapy and Dr. Lowell could explain to her that hair loss does not occur inevitably with chemotherapy but varies person to person. Maybe if Mrs. Jackson knew more about what the treatment entails she might change her mind about it.
References:
Mappes, Thomas A., David Degrazia. Biomedical Ethics – Fifth Edition. Fairfield, PA:
Mc-Graw Hill Higher Education. 2001
Robert, Jason Scott. Lecture. Bioethics. LSE 106, ASU, Tempe, AZ
Paramedics deemed the patient competent and therefore Ms. Walker had the right to refuse treatment, which held paramedics legally and ethically bound to her decisions. Although negligent actions were identified which may have resulted in a substandard patient treatment, paramedics acted with intent to better the patient despite unforeseen future factors. There is no set structure paramedics can follow in an ethical and legal standpoint thus paramedics must tailor them to every given
According to Terrence F. Ackerman, as of the 1980s the American Medical Association had to include the respect for a person’s autonomy as a principle of medical ethics (Ackerman 14, 1982). This includes having the physician provide all the medical information to the patient even if the information could cause negative implication onto the patient. The physician is also expected to withhold all information of the patient from 3rd parties (Ackerman 14, 1982). Although it is seen as standard in today’s world, in
Nathaniel Wu, a talented and dedicated microbiologist, should be hired for the Intercontinental Pharmaceutical Company (ICP) under certain conditions. Wu, who was diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, was seen as the ideal candidate for the employment position the IPC was offering until this inconvenience was unveiled. To offer Wu employment unconditionally is extremely risky for the medical costs and equipment damages he can bring to the company can be devastating; to deny Wu employment entirely is a violation of bioethics and discrimination, for he was already offered the job position conditionally before taking medical tests. By offering Wu employment under certain conditions, Wu can be part of the IPC and have him employment terminated as soon as his condition begins interfering with his work quality.
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
The word abortion brings out a variety of attitudes & perceptions amongst people. The topic is surrounded by emotion and empathy, which often creates a divide, those who view abortion as permissible and those who do not. In “Bioethics Before Birth," Tooley and Marquis provide their arguments on abortion. Their arguments share some similarities but their viewpoints and delivery set them apart. I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments.
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?
My brother deserves to die. My grandmother should have died sooner than she did. My brother is autistic, cannot speak, and cannot even completely dress himself-he makes no visible contribution to society-therefore he should not be allowed to live. My grandmother had Alzheimer's disease, slipped into a coma after Valentine's Day, and was placed on a feeding tube until she finally passed on two days before my 16th birthday-but she should not have been allowed to waste my family's money and stay in the hospital for weeks. My family should have just let her die and get over with it.
Not all cases is patient autonomy the most important thing to respect and honor. There will always be situations where Medical paternalism is justified. Justifiable paternalism in a medical perspective is prolonging patients’ lives allowing them to exercise their autonomy. Failing to respect a patient’s treatment requests or denials is a violation of the autonomy at that point in time during their illness. While the previous statement is true, the medical professional is violating a patient’s future autonomy. For this reason, medical professionals have the right to act paternalistically, therefore medical paternalism is justified by means of future autonomy and obligations to promote patient
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Bioethics was originated many centuries ago. Ethical theories in medicine are the basis of bioethics. There are many different ethical approaches which causes much dispute. The imperical question is, what makes an act right and which approach to follow. The Greeks addressed the virtue of ethics. They looked into the good of the person and the situation. Ethos in Greek means, disposition and trait. So consequently they looked at eh person’s skills, habits, and traits. Compassion and the meaning of suffering are some other issues in Bioethics that can be argued. Choosing an act because it is right and also looking at the consequences are some other concerns. Other things to consider are what the patient and their families want. Their religious beliefs are also a major concern. How far should someone go to help a dying suffering patient who wants to take their life? Is it right to intercept and help a patient to die? Medical technology is ever advancing. People are being kept alive for years on support. This is a major topic of debate in Bioethics. Deciding if it’s right or wrong to keep them alive even if they are brain dead is a major concern. What constitutes a person a person when they have Alzheimer’s or brain damage? Are they a person? These are some of the major topics discussed in Bioethics.
At times, ethical questions do arise when the correct path is not present or when there is a disagreement between the medical professional and the patient. Common ethical questions could arise which include
Everyday, people are forced to make a multitude of decisions. The basis of that person’s decisions stems from the set of principles or beliefs that they have. When someone is deciding between what is right and what is wrong, these core beliefs are exactly what shapes someone’s decision making process, and this is ethics; the moral principles on behavior that deal with what is good and what is bad. A more specific type of ethics is bioethics, which is the study of ethical dilemmas within the sciences, specicifcally dealing with biology (Cotler). Within bioethics, there are four main principles that help to guide and decide what is right and wrong. These four principles are autonomy, nonmaleifience, beneficence, and justice.
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
Autonomy in health care means that a mentally competent patient should be allowed to make their own informed decision on medical treatment (Jecker and Berniker 2015). Respect means proving privacy when needed, treating a patient as a person rather than as a disease, and taking into account any of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Health-Care provision becomes extremely challenging when dealing with complicated circumstances that require professional competence in resolving ethical dilemmas. Physicians have a responsibility to apply medicine within an ethical framework that is beneficial to patients while conforming to existing laws. Such a direction is difficult due to the mix of varying values, preferences, interests and existing regulations. Here, a clear guidance on best approaches to help physicians solve ethical dilemmas is helpful. This paper explores the four component model moral framework, which physician can apply to specific cases to resolve ethical dilemmas that arise in the general healthcare.