The Divided Loyalties scenario is a complex scenario where the physician has to make a decision to change the course of several people’s lives. Before making the decision the physician has to evaluate the prima facie principles being challenged. First, the principle of honesty is challenged. The principle of honesty is being broken if it is decided not to tell the family about the father’s excellent match. This is not lying, but it is not telling the whole truth which is still undermining the principle of honesty. The next principle being confronted is the principle of autonomy. The father has his own right to live life the way he wants, and if he does not want to donate his kidney he has the right to make that decision, but making that decision …show more content…
This deontological ethical theories realizes that there is good and bad in every moral situation and focuses more on the outcome than actually doing the act. For the sake of this scenario the moral situation is going to be phrased as: Ought the physician to go around the father’s wishes to help the daughter’s medical situation? The relevant facts of this scenario is the effect it has on the father and the daughter, and how it will effect each one. The father could be devastated by donating a kidney he never wanted to donate in the first place, or the little girl could lose her life if the father does not donate his kidney. To sort the effects of the two people look at both of the outcomes of a decision. First, look at the two options and two outcomes of each. Option A is yes, tell the man’s family about his match, so the little girl will get her kidney transplant. The good in this situation is that more than likely the kidney transplant will save the daughter’s life. The bad in this situation is to break the dad’s option to make his own choice and give him complete control over his body. On the other side, Option B is to not tell the family, and look for a cadaver kidney. The good in this situation is the physician is not overstepping the father’s wishes to make sure his family pushes him into giving the girl his kidney. The bad in this situation is the little girl has a higher chance of not surviving. Deciding between the lesser of two evils saving the girls life becomes more valuable than overstepping the father’s wishes. Therefore, deducting an answer using Act Utilitarianism means that the physician will tell the rest of the family that the father is the correct tissue match, and they will pressure him into donating a
American Medical Int’l, Inc. According to this theory, individuals’ decisions are guided by what they are supposed to do, not by consequences or effects. That is to say, a person’s action is ethically right if it coincides with a prevailing moral duty (“Deontological Ethics,” 2007). In the dilemma involving the patient Riser, Dr. Lang violated the theory of deontological ethics by not performing his duty of acquiring informed consent from the patient. By standard of conduct, Dr. Lang was supposed to present a consent form to Riser prior to the operation that would explain the procedure of a femoral arteriogram (although it was supposed to be bilateral arteriograms instead) and thoroughly explain the possible benefits and risks of the procedure. As a result, the patient should have the right to decide whether the femoral arteriogram should be performed or not. However, Riser was not aware of the femoral arteriogram at all. Therefore, deontological ethics should have been followed, which would advise Dr. Lang to follow the ethical duties of a healthcare professional, and those include obtaining informed consent from the
As afore mentioned, Lachs criticizes Callahan’s classification of the power over life as a fundamental moral wrong. In his article, Callahan states, “it is a fundamental moral wrong for one person to give over his life and fate to another, whatever the good consequences, and no less a wrong for another person to have that kind of total, find power.” (659) Lachs disagrees with this statement and creates a scenario about kidney donation to ultimately show
Throughout the article, Saunders often discusses presumed consent. Presumed consent is the idea that we can assume that a person’s organs may be used and that this permits us to take them as if they had consented to organ donation, unless they have registered an objection. This is challenging because it implies that consent is a mental attitude – something like approval – instead of an act. Saunders argues that if consent is necessary to be given, then it cannot merely be presumed when no act has taken
Healthcare creates unique dilemmas that must consider the common good of every patient. Medical professionals, on a frequent basis, face situations that require complicated, and at times, difficult decision-making. The medical matters they decide on are often sensitive and critical in regards to patient needs and care. In the Case of Marguerite M and the Angiogram, the medical team in both cases were faced with the critical question of which patient gets the necessary medical care when resources are limited. In like manner, when one patient receives the appropriate care at the expense of another, medical professionals face the possibility of liability and litigation. These medical circumstances place a burden on the healthcare professionals to think and act in the best interest of the patient while still considering the ethical and legal issues they may confront as a result of their choices and actions. Medical ethics and law are always evolving as rapid advances in all areas of healthcare take place.
They have very different perspectives and can determine various types of challenges in cases such like the Quinlan case. The ethical position that is most agreeable is utilitarianism. Deontological is the moral decision. Utilitarianism is the moral outcomes from a decision. The Quinlan case a tragic event of a 21year old woman in a coma and the debate of her end of life management. The deontological point of view sided with the hospital and utilitarian point of view sided with the family. From personal experience, I believe utilitarianism is the best the ethical principal for this case because it is focused on the relief of the family and Karen Quinlan. Ethics is basis of making moral decisions and outcome
In step six we must, “ Make the decision and document the decision-making process” (p.166). As I did my research and decided what was morally correct to do in this situation, I decided Lori should have the bone marrow transplant done. I do not think she is at the right stage of life to make a life or death decision, when we have the option of saving her life. There are too many parties that feel that this option is the best one and want to at least try to help her. At this point, we can say we tried and if it does not work we never gave up on her.
Charlotte’s parents thought otherwise, the Ethics Advisory Committee had to get involved. The debate surrounded if the doctors were in the right to control the life of someone who were incapable of deciding themselves, or is it the parents right. The Ethics Advisory Committee, stated that the parents were superior to those of the hospital and the hospital should conduct with less painful test. Charlotte’s parents wanted the doctors to continue testing until it was determined that her life diffidently had no chance of remaining. Because, of Charlotte’s parents’ desires unfortunately caused Charlotte to die a painful death without her parents. If the patient is unable to speak for their selves, the family should be able to have some say in the medical treatment, however; if the doctors have tried everything they could do, the hospital should have final decisions whether or not the patient dies or treatment
In the medical field, there are many ethical dilemmas that a person could face. One of the major dilemmas in the medical field comes from being a doctor. While attending to a patient/ client the doctor may not know the best treatment or course of action to take because of the many options there could be. The values and beliefs of a doctor can’t interfere with the treatment of a patient/client. Their job is to be honest, benevolent, respectful, and to maintain confidentiality of the patient/client.
Dear colleagues, please note a sensitive case has been brought to us to deliberate on. David, who is a father, has requested to donate his second kidney to his daughter, Renada. What is more, she urgently needs to undergo a kidney transplant. As you know, the matter has gained the attention of the entire country, and it is our duty to ensure that we solve the case with utmost care using the applicable principles of bioethics. Renada’s case is very challenging and sensitive because we have to balance two critical aspects. Either we agree to grant Renada’s father his wish of saving his daughter and possibly harm his health in the process, or we go against the request and save his life and millions of taxpayers’ money that would be used for his dialysis after the operation. I would like to draw your attention to the respect of autonomy as per the principles of bioethics, which lays emphasis on the practice of informed consent. According to the case at hand, David Patterson, who has been sentenced to 12
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
The world is made up of many different cultures, so this setting would allow humans to collaborate under a universal bureaucracy. This would be advantageous because it would allow fair and just consequences for every individual. However, the disadvantage with Deontology is that there are no exceptions for an individual in this ethical dilemma. When collaborating different cultures, it may be complex to diffuse any strong ties to beliefs. This brings an important point because the disadvantage in the dilemma is not giving the husband an option to save his wife. In contrast, an advantage to Utilitarianism is that an action is justified if the result has a positive outcome. In other words, "Utilitarians tell us to do
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "Rule-Utilitarianism versus Act-Utilitarianism." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 12. Print.
According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards.
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.