Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on medical ethics
Essay on medical ethics
Essay on medical ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on medical ethics
Medical Ethics:
Since ancient history societies have practiced medicine. Professor Albert Jonsen describes the personification of doctors in American literature as great moral heroes (97). In last century the medical practices have significantly evolved. Clinics designed to practice abortions, stem cell research companies and even facilities which accommodate to brain dead patients have opened. As a result debates regard the right to an abortion and pulling the plug on brain dead patients have arisen. Eric Schulzke claims many compromises must be made in order to strike a balance between the differences of opinions regarding abortion (564). As a result of these debates medical professionals find themselves in between their moral obligations
…show more content…
This includes case which would otherwise be considered medically appropriate” (256). Conscientious objection gives medical professionals a way to properly refuse care without being put in a compromising position. Political Scientist Eric Schulzke describes a pharmacy in Washington which does not stock emergency contraceptives. The technicians instead refer customers to other stores who do stock them. When this case was taken to court their actions were sound to be lawful (563). The pharmacists did not stand in the way of their customers’ ability to obtain contraceptives. They were able to follow their ethics meanwhile respecting their customer’s wishes. The American Medical Association established that a physician has the right to choose who they associate with, serve, and the environment they practice in while providing proper patient care (Leffler, 185). By conscientiously objecting a health care profession is given the opportunity to follow their moral compass while following the laws and guidelines established in the professional
Sarah Cullen and Margaret Klein, “Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth,” in L. Vaughn, Bioethics: 148-55
Oddly, physicians brought abortion into the public’s eye. These physicians formed a pro-life movement arguing the moral knowledge that the public didn’t seem to have (12, Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood p. 000). According to the source, women didn’t understand that the embryo is a living being. With their lack of knowledge about things, they came “murderesses” and the only way this could be solved was to outlaw abortion. They kept the idea that abortion was murder, but, at the same time, they also said that only they could decide when an abortion should occur. With their accomplishment, in 1900, every state had a law that stated that abortion is illegal except for when the mother’s life is in danger. But the weakness of this was that the law didn’t specifically define the danger a mother should be in.
Ishmeal is a doctor in medicine that has a religious background. He isn’t bias, and he takes a step or two back to see the bigger picture in the decisions he is going to make. “I took an oath on the day that I graduated from medical school that obligated me to offer, to the best of my abilities, appropriate, uncompromised medical care without bias.” (Bradley 1). Conscientious objection is when a situation interferes with a physician 's morals or values. If a
Abortion is a tremendous issue in our society today. As well as the article “Abortion” by Selzer, I have also read Mortal Lessons, a book he had also written. Selzer is an author who wrote in order to describe “unsparingly the surgeon’s art, opening up the body to view one part at a time.” The article “Abortion” classifies him as a doctor, but the way in which he writes makes him a philosopher as well. Selzer not only writes about the physical aspects of surgery, but also the emotional and psychological sides that agree with it.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Reich, Warren T. “The Care-Based Ethic of Nazi Medicine and the Moral Importance of What We Care About”. American Journal of Bioethics 1.1 (2001): 64-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne, and Mappes, D. DeGrazia. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Thus the AMA has recently announced the implementation of the Institute for Ethics. The goal of this entity within the AMA will be to educate 10% of its member doctors (estimated to be 20,000) on hospice and palliative care. Further, they believe that providing responsible alternative treatment to ending life will all but eliminate the quest for euthanasia. This aggressive new project will be headed by Linda Emanuel, Professor of Bioethics at Harvard. The two-year pilot program is funded by a 2-million-dollar grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ironically, this foundation is also well known for aggressive pro-abortion funding. However,...
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.
Doctors have to go through many years of studying and many more hours of practicing on people. These qualities make any doctor seem god-like to the eyes of everyday people. Doctors are trusted blindly and people are led to believe that doctors are always honest. In the story, The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams, the parents of Matilda question the tactics the doctor is using to properly diagnose the girl but trust that the doctor knows what he is doing and lets him use force anyway. These cases are seen all over the world as well. There have been many reported cases of doctors using force to allow patients to get treated. Some patients however, do not wish to be treated because of things like religion or preference or other reasons but doctors still treat them in order to save them from themselves. The power struggle creates anger and resentment from both parties and blurs the line between personal rights and saving lives. In an article written by Jessica Grose, doctors force a woman to have a C-Section because they believe it was in the baby’s best interest. However, the woman did not want to have the surgery performed. This led to the doctors threatening to sue the woman for possible child endangerment. The woman, in fear of possibly killing her child, sided with the health care providers even though personally she did not want to have the surgery performed. This
Philosopher, Ezekial Emanuel, asserts that the ethical belief in the 19th and 20th century in the United States are reminiscent of those today, both in terms of content and ferocity. Emanuel adds that interest in euthanasia arose historically and predictably from (1) economic recession or movements of Social Darwinism; (2) doctors who engaged in a struggle with society over their medical-authority and profession; and (3) terminating life-sustaining practices become part of standard medical practice, and there is a desire then to extend this to active euthanasia.
When one initially chooses a career path, one rarely looks at all the negatives that may be associated with that choice. Most career paths have some negatives associated with the field, but few face the moral dilemmas associated with modern healthcare. Those who choose to be in the healthcare profession today are faced with moral and ethical dilemmas that would make King Solomon tear his hair out. In many cases, doctors, and sometimes nurses, are faced with life and death decisions without the benefit of knowing the patient’s, or the patient’s family’s, wishes. However, aside from those tragic times when a patient’s wishes are unknown, healthcare professionals must always put their own morals aside, and act
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
In the second article Julie Cantor and Ken Baum explains that individual right and public health boundaries remain unclear and want to offer a balance solution for this complex problem. The conclude that no the pharmacist should not reject and or reject the dispensing of the drugs due to the have an obligation to meet the needs of their customers by referring them elsewhere. They argue in this article “The Limits of Conscientious Objection- May Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?” regarding pharmacists as professional and with their code of ethics that is seems inappropriate to question their right. However, even the courts have agreed that pharmacists have a duty of care. Professionals are expected to place the interests of their clients above their own immediate needs. They believe that a pharmacist understand their fiduciary obligations when they choose their profession (Baum, 2004). Next they argue that emergency contraception is not an abortifacient. They next objecting medications can affect a patient’s health and even place a heavy burden on a person who has no means for another option. Refusal has potential for abuse and discrimination. Final argument is if refusal is the choice then it is unacceptable to leave a patient to fend for themselves. The offer the solution of may have the right to object but, not to
Bioethics is a reflection of controversial moral choices or decisions pertaining to medical and healthcare fields. There have always been ethical standards in healthcare handed down within each profession. Although ethical decisions of the past were followed without question, bioethics today is constantly debated among those in the medical field, the general public, and those in governmental positions. Technological advances within the last century have opened the door to discussion about the ethics surrounding the last medical and technological advances. The decisions are influenced by culture, religion, philosophy, and personal preference. Bioethical decisions are always open for questioning. It is even possible for issues to be ethical during one decade and upon review, deemed unethical several years later. It is the job of the medical community and the public to question these issues, debate them, and accept or reject them. Although there have been hundreds of people who have influenced bioethics through their technological advances, Sir Robert Edwards’ invitro- fertilization techniques have changed the way many women today can become a mother.