Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and professionalism in the healthcare field
Ethics in the medical field
Ethics in the medical field
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics and professionalism in the healthcare field
Because I find Jane to be one patient and not two separate individuals, it is my stance that she is the one that the principle of respect for autonomy applies. That is, as the fetus’s host, Jane should be the only one that is able to make choices in regard to the fetus. I find it odd that some people fight for the rights of the fetus because they believe the fetus possesses human status, but seem to make Jane a second priority. If medical professionals find Jane and the fetus to be two patients, the staff has moral obligations to both of them. If medical professionals feel they have an obligation to the fetus in regard to duty-based principles such as the duty to respect autonomy and consequence-based principles such as nonmaleficence, they …show more content…
If they had better understood her reasons, they may have been able to better explain the benefits as compared to the risks and put her at ease. Without knowing her reasons for refusal, it is impossible to balance the benefits and harms. The C-section may be beneficent to the fetus, but may be extremely harmful to Jane. In cases of non-emergency, the staff could seek guidance from other hospital resources such as a counselor or therapist. In biomedical cases, it is important to work with others to choose an appropriate course of action. It would be beneficial to understand why Jane is refusing the C-section, but in this case, time is of the essence and speaking to a therapist is not an option. For that reason, I find that Jane has the right to choose what to do with her body and her unborn child even as he/she is in the process of being …show more content…
While some reasons may not be “good” reasons (i.e., Jane does not want a physical scar), I would feel better knowing exactly what caused her refusal. The reasons may be based on the physical or psychological pain she experienced with her first C-section. Some may argue that it may be more damaging psychologically to give birth to a dead baby. While I agree that such an event may cause psychological distress, I still find that it is ultimately her choice. Others may question if Jane is currently high given her past drug use. That would be easy to determine as the medical staff could do blood work to determine if drugs are in Jane’s system. Nevertheless, she has the right to make autonomous choices. In fact, she could be making her decision based on the fact that is/was a drug user and may expect the baby to have issues. She (in her own way) may even be trying to protect the baby. Jane’s decision may also be based on cultural or religious reasons although this may seem unlikely being that she has had a C-section in the past. While there are many reasons why Jane may be refusing the treatment, the medical staff cannot make a determination on whether her actions are right or wrong without understanding her position. Therefore, the C-section, while an option, is not the right course of action if Jane chooses to refuse
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a fetus. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the initial contention that the fetus has a right to life at the moment of conception. However, Thomson explains, it is not self-evident that the fetus's right to life will always outweigh the mother's right to determine what goes on in her body. Thomson also contends that just because a woman voluntarily had intercourse, it does not follow that the fetus acquires special rights against the mother. Therefore, abortion is permissible even if the mother knows the risks of having sex. She makes her points with the following illustration. Imagine that you wake up one morning and find that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and a famous violist has been attached to your circulatory system. You are told that the violinist was ill and you were selected to be the host, in which the violinist will recover in nine months, but will die if disconnected from you before then. Clearly, Thomson argues, you are not morally required to continue being the host. In her essay she answers the question: what is the standard one has to have in order to be granted a right to life? She reflects on two prospects whether the right to life is being given the bare minimum to sustain life or ir the right to life is merely the right not to be killed. Thomson states that if the violinist has more of a right to life then you do, then someone should make you stay hooked up to the violinist with no exceptions. If not, then you should be free to go at a...
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
Roger Higgs, in “On Telling Patients the Truth” supplies commonly used arguments for paternalistic deception. For the purposes of this paper, paternalism will be defined as, “interference with one’s autonomy or self determination for their own good.” The first argument for paternalistic deception is founded on the idea that medicine is a technical subject where there are very few guarantees (613). Thus, Higgs supplies the argument that not only is it impossible for a patient to understand the true breadth of their diagnosis and prognosis, but additionally that medical predictions are not medical truths. The second argument for paternalistic deception comes from the belief that patients do not actually want to know the truth about their condition, and could suffer from worse health outcomes if they are told the truth (614, 615).
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. 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.
No doubt the mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what shall happen to her body, and so outweighs it. So the foetus may not be killed and an abortion may not be performed (Thomson, 1971) In response to this argument, Thomson uses her Violinist analogy. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and upon waking have found that your circulatory system has been plugged into a famous violinist who is suffering from kidney failure.
However, we have reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally wrong.
Bodily autonomy is a concept that is considered to be a human right. Bodily autonomy means that a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Bodily autonomy is why you cannot be forced to donate your blood, tissue, or organs, even if you’re dead, even in the circumstance that your blood, tissue, and organs would save fifteen lives. Bodily autonomy is why someone cannot touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent. A fetus is using and surviving from somebody else’s body parts. Therefore, under bodily autonomy, the fetus is in that person’s body by permission, not by right, and requires a person’s continuous consent to remain in that position. If the person
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
It is saddening to see humans of the female gender, who find themselves in a situation that requires introducing a new life into the world; to abort such a precious gift. Many may wonder how these poor, innocent, unborn children are then discarded after the abortion procedure. One cannot fathom the reason of these gruesome murders that happens within these medical facilities. Babies are disposed in the red waste bins of these facilities, and later incinerated. Some may either be flushed down garbage disposals or even be sold off for research purposes. The issue of abortion is not just a social one, but also a human rights issue among the unborn children. I believe if the human rights of these children has been violated, then all other rights of humans are certainly meaningless.
Does the doctor must tell the truth directly to the patient regardless of the families' wishes? Or maybe the doctor should tell the truth first to the patient and just after that to the family? Ruiping Fan and Benfu Li’s article tries to arguing if the doctor should or should not tell the truth to the patient. In my opinion, patients have the right to know their state of health. To tell the truth despite families wishes, and to tell the truth to patient before telling to family depends on many things, such as the patient's age , disease , religious beliefs, and etc.
In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to have a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precautions to ensure avoid conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her of choice of abortion; it may be enough to ascertain when an abortion can be ethically selected (Cline, 2014). When a woman does not wish to carry an abortion to term, it will be unethical for law or any other person to force them to do so.... ...
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.