Class,
For the cases below you are to represent the following viewpoints:
Utilitarianism: Bennett, Bryla, Buechel, Caruso
Kant: Clifford, Compton, Dickman, Green, Hornsby
Virtue: Klare, Knolle, Kriege, La Corte
Ross: Morrison, Nielander, Okoth
Feminism: Sandmann, Snipes, Tinker, Traxler, Walling
Principles of Bioethics: Wegman, Whelen, Wyatt, Ziegler, Zink
Cases (comment on at least 2 of the 3 cases. You may discuss separately and present one group view, or collectively respond to create the group response). Please title your responses for ease of tracking.
1. Medline reports a study from July 2010 about 1 in 3 doctors reluctant to report their impaired or incompetent colleagues. Full story here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_101003.html
2. Another study, surveying 3, 700 doctors in Britain finds that nonreligious doctors hasten death more. Full story at http://www.kirotv.com/print/24769207/detail.html
3. A paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine looked at the ethics of offering payment to living people who donate a kidney. "Summaries for Patients" synopsis at: http://www.annals.org/content/152/6/I-46.full?sid=de8db5fe-8228-48f1-9922-0a7a239c7ece
1. DOCS WOULDN’T REPORT IMPAIRED/INCOMPETENT COLLEAGUES:
ReplyDeleteIn reference to Autonomy (respect others) biomedical principle, I believe the doctors should report their incompetent colleagues for the patient’s sake. It is respectful to the patient to provide them with someone who can give them the adequate care that they may necessarily need. Taking that away from them would be considered disrespectful. When considering the biomedical principle of Beneficence (do good), they would be doing such good by following the American Medical Association by reporting the incompetent colleagues, as they have an obligation to do so as a physician. In reference to the biomedical principle Non-Beneficence (do no harm), it would also make sense to turn in the impaired or incompetent doctors. If a competent doctor ignored the actions of an impaired doctor, this could cause physical harm to the patient. Finally, the Justice biomedical principle says to be fair. In order to follow this principle, doctors who directly see an impaired or incompetent physician situation should report their findings immediately in every situation with no biases on friendship, races, religion, etc.
2. NON-RELIGIOUS DOCTORS HASTEN DEATH MORE:
According to Autonomy, doctors should respect the patient’s thoughts, behaviors, and final decisions about death and dying. Their religious beliefs should not interfere with this process whatsoever. In reference to the biomedical principle Beneficence, the doctor should ‘do good’ to his patients. This would come by letting the patient’s own religion influence their death decisions. The biomedical principle Non-Beneficence says to do no harm. I believe that doctors who let their religious beliefs interfere with the patients desires is doing absolute harm to the patient’s well being. The last biomedical principle is Justice (be fair). It would not be fair to the patients to have to doctors making decisions for them based on the doctor’s religion. I believe it is the patient’s decision; the doctor may have his or her own opinions, but those opinions must be ‘left at home’ when it comes to providing adequate care to patients.
1. DOCS WOULDN’T REPORT IMPAIRED/INCOMPETENT COLLEAGUES:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Kant's view, the doctors should report impaired/incompetent colleagues. Kant is a lot like Autonomy in the sense that he believes in the value of respect. Kant states that every person by virtue of his or her humanity has an inherent dignity, and that all persons are entitled to respect, not only from others but from themselves as well. It would be a disgrace to the patient's dignity if the colleagues were not reported. This is like saying the patient is not good enough, or does not deserve to have a doctor that is in an adequate condition to treat patients. This is a major strike against the patient's dignity in the sense that you don't care what the patient deserves, you only want to protect yourself. By protecting yourself, I mean not reporting the colleagues due to fear of others. One may lose all their friends if they report the colleague, or one may be called a "tattle tale" in this sense, you are trying to protect yourself rather than the patient. However, by keeping this secret, you are not respecting yourself either. You are saying to yourself, it's O.K. for me to lie (which by the way, Kant does not believe it is O.K. for anyone to lie in any kind of circumstance) because that's what is expected of me, that's what everyone else is doing. You do not deserve to feel pressured by any outside sources. You should always do what you believe is right, even if it's not what everyone else is doing. Stated in a better way, "Speak your mind... even if your voice trembles".
2. NON-RELIGIOUS DOCTORS HASTEN DEATH MORE:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Kant is a lot like Autonomy in the issue of respect. The patient's wishes should be respected, regardless of whether or not the doctor agrees with them. It is not the doctors life that is coming to an end, it is the patient's, therefore the doctor should have no say in how the patient chooses to die. When it's his turn, then he can voice his opinions, but until then, he needs to be considerate of what the patient wants, and put his judgment aside. Regarding whether or not doctors should inform their patients of their religious beliefs, Kant would say yes, they most certainly should. Kant has a duty, called the duty to not lie; if the patient were to ask the doctor his/her religious beliefs, the doctor should tell the complete truth to the patient, no matter the cost ( i.e. having to transfer their patient to another doctor, who coincides with the patient's wishes). Once again, this is being respectful of the patient's desires. If the patient feels uncomfortable with an agnostic doctor who tells the patient that this is it, and there is no afterlife, then the patient should have the right to choose whether or not they would like another doctor to carry out the rest of treatment. Kant's theory is very much like the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. If the doctor were a patient, would he want another doctor telling him what to believe, or stating that the patient is going to be treated by this doctor who does not share his beliefs, nor cares what the patient believes, whether he likes it or not?
Ethics of Care/Feminism
ReplyDelete1). If a doctor wasn’t turning in another doctor who was incompetent to provide care to patients because of a relationship between the two then you could see the ethic of care come into play, because you place special weight on some relationships which result in them taking interest over other things or people.
However, another way to see ethics of care come into this situation is look at it as health care worker who works using the ethics of care as a guide for decision making among his/her relationships with clients and other members of the health care team because they have to weigh the effect their choice will have on their various relationships and consider the responsibilities the worker owes each relationship. In this case I’d imagine that the duty to protect the patient would win out over protecting another health care provider.
2). When using ethics of care as a guideline to decision making about end of life care you would see a focus on the specific case and people involved and an attempt to provide care in a way that took care of everyone’s interests. You’d see this individualization because someone using ethics of care would process the situation keeping these things in mind: assessing individualized needs of the patient, the doctor’s response to the needs is personalized and caring, and he/she assess how the response will impact others involved in care to keep or get the best relationships they can with them.
Thoughts on Ethics of Care/Feminism concerning these issues were developed using the textbook’s description.
Mappes, T., & DeGrazia, D. (2006). Biomedical Ethics (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Case Three: Receiving payment for a kidney
ReplyDeleteAccording to Kantian Ethics, it would not be ethical to receive payment for a kidney because then the donor would not be acting out of pure selflessness. In Kantian ethics, the only correct way to do something for someone else is to not get any benefit from it for yourself. If the donor would make money from making this donation, or would even have some satisfaction they get out of helping others, than it would be wrong for them to donate. Additionally, according to the Categorical Imperative, if you are receiving money for this kidney, than you are treating the patient as means to get money. This is unethical, because the Categorical Imperative tells you to treat others as ends and never as means.
Case One: Reporting Impaired or Incompetent Doctors
According to Kantian Ethics, this is unethical. According to the Categorical Imperative, one should only act on the rule that they can also will to be a universal law of nature. I am sure that these doctors would not want to be treated by an incompetent doctor when it comes their time to be ill, and so they can not will that other doctors do not report the incompetent. If they do in fact will this, then I suppose it is ethical for them, but if they cannot will that other doctors not report incompetent doctors, then they also need to report these doctors, and failing to do so would be unethical according to Kant.
Kant's theory is based on the Categorical Imperative (CI)
ReplyDelete1st act only on that maxim through which you at the same time will that it should become a universal law
2nd treat humanity as ends, never as means only.
Actions are right if they are done purely from good will, not if they make us feel good and not simply if they bring about good consequences. Moral rule.
1 in 3 U.S. Docs wouldn't report impaired, incompetent colleagues:
Based on Kant's theories Doctor's would always have to report impaired colleagues because it was their duty. The action would be right because it was done for the good will of others. Consequences of the action could be negative, like the reported doctor could get fired and the reportee could be given a name for being a tattle-tail, but the patients that the impaired doctor saw would be not be treated as only means any longer. Because the doctor would not be treating them as ends if he was just using them for a paycheck and not providing them with effective health care.
Nonreligious doc hasten death more:
Kant would agree that every doctor should act without regard to their personal views on religion. A universal law should be put into place that helps regulate end of death care so that everyone is given equal treatment and Doctors do not have to feel bad about making their discussions if they happen to be very religious.
The ethics of offering payment to living people who donate a kidney:
Kant would agree with offering money for a kidney, because one it wouldn't treat the donor as a means only to get a kidney since they would get financial reward, and two the person who gave the kidney would not be doing it because it makes them feel good and has good consequences, but don purely fro good will.
PRINCIPLES OF BIOETHICS
ReplyDelete1) 1 in 3 U.S. Docs Wouldn't Report Impaired, Incompetent Colleague
In regards to the principle of Autonomy (respect others), the doctors who know of an incompetent coworker should report that person right away. Autonomy requires one to respect others by telling the truth and by withholding information on an incompetent doctor, one is withholding the truth, being that they doctor knows his stuff, from patients. In regards to the principle of Beneficence (do good), the doctor that realizes a another doctor is incompetent should report that person to the American Medical Association (AMA) because that is the good thing to do. The incompetent doctor will not provide the best treatment possible for the patients and therefore, for the good of the patients, he should be reported. In regards to the principle of Non-maleficence (do no harm), the doctor should report the incompetent doctor. By having the doctor remain practicing, the patients could possibly be harmed and therefore in order to make the ethical decision, that doctor must be reported. In regards to the principle of Justice (be fair), I believe that this is a two way road. It is not fair for the patients to be harmed for the doctor’s misdoings but it also isn’t fair for the doctor to lose his license too. But I believe that, in regards to moral decisions, the patient’s needs are more important than that of the doctor wasting his life in school and having everything taken away.
2) Study: Nonreligious Docs Hasten Death More
In regards to the principle of Autonomy, the doctor should respect the patient’s thoughts and feelings pertaining to their own terminal disease. Not talking to the patients about the end of the life treatment decisions would be wrong because of the fact that it’s the patient’s right to be heard and their right to decline treatment plans. In regards to the principle of Beneficence, the doctors should fight their hardest to keep the patient functioning mentally and physically. Beneficence is not conducted when the doctor goes behind the patients back and sedates them with the patient’s knowledge. In regards to the principle of Non-maleficence, the doctor should make sure the patient knows everything before certain aspects of treatments that will be performed. By informing the patient, the doctor can base the right treatment for the patient, whereas the doctor that sedates the patient without his or her knowledge, the doctor does harm to the patient. In regards to the principle of Justice, the doctors should listen to the patient. In any case, the doctor should take into account what the patient says in order to provide what the patient wants and the best treatment under those circumstances.
Ethics of Care/ Feminism
ReplyDelete1.1 in 3 doctors reluctant to report their impaired or incompetent colleagues.
I believe that if the doctor was turning in other colleagues that had no relationship status between them it would be okay. With the ethics of care/feminism theory it is based on emotions and relationships. It is all about the specialty that the relationship has between the doctor and the patient. I think that the health of the patient would outweigh turning in a colleague who isn’t doing the job correctly. I also take this thought into consideration. What if the colleague was someone you know and is really close to you in your life until he or she does something to make you upset. Would you then turn in this person because your emotions are telling you to do this because you’re upset?
2.Doctors in Britain finds that nonreligious doctors hasten death more
This case has a lot of emotions with the doctor and patient and doctor with the friends/ family of the patient. Principle of care comes into play because you as the doctor want to make everything okay for everyone so you would do your best to accommodate those wishes. Like Melissa stated in her comment, there would be a lot of things to take into consideration: like the patients wants and needs, the family’s wishes and etc. I feel that to have a true feminist view you would have to take each individual situation into play and see if emotions come into play and what your relationship is towards the situation.
1. Nonreligious Doctors- I believe that the virtue theory would say these doctors were taught this way. The virtue theory says character is not born, it is learned. These doctors were taught by another doctor or just their personal family values. The doctors who were religious had learned values of their religion that they are supposed to live by. The virtue theory also says that doing what your character says is right is not always the easiest thing to do. The doctors who had a religious belief knew that even though it may be hard, it was the right thing.
ReplyDelete2. Incompetent Colleague- This story also has to do with the character of the doctors. Most of the doctors didn't report their fellow colleagues. Based on the virtue theory, the doctor relied on their own character to decide. The doctors had an individual choice based on their own values and beliefs. Virtue theory brings up the question "what kind of person should I be?" I believe that these doctors asked this before thinking about turning in another doctor. Also they knew it was the right thing to do but it would also be very hard.
Ross' principles are defensible of the "cases of conscience" which involves situations that confront one with a conflict of duties. Ross' argument is against Kant and the Utilitarian. He introduced the 'Prima Facie Duties' These are the conditional duties. The utilitarian believes that several duties are derived from the principle of utility - which is maximizing goodness or minimizing harm for the greatest number. The Kantian believes that several duties can be derived from the categorical imperative - which involves acting always on the maxim which you can simultaneously will to become a universal law and always treat others as ends, never as means only (The Golden Rule).
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, Ross argues that 'our various prima facie duties have no unitary basis for they emerge out of our numerous "morally significant relations." Ross split his argument into seven different duties of: fidelity, beneficence, justice, non maleficence, gratitude, reparation, and self-improvement.
Based on Ross' view on Case 1:
ReplyDeleteONE IN THREE US DOCTORS WOULD NOT REPORT IMPAIRED, INCOMPETENT COLLEAGUE....
In this situation there is conflict of duties of fidelity and the duties of beneficence, non maleficence and justice. The fact that most Doctors do not report this kind of case, may imply that most of them keep everything confidential and may be to themselves not to interfere or ruin another colleague's life or put his/her life in jeopardy... It is also justifiable at the same time for the truth to prevail for this will help enhance a patient's trust in a Doctor. In the difficult situations like this, Ross' view says that 'we can render a "considered decision" as to which duty is more incumbent upon us in a certain situation.' Therefore since most of the duties out weigh the duties of fidelity, turning in colleagues like that in, would be the right thing to do.
Ross' view on Case 2:
ReplyDeleteNON RELIGIOUS DOCTORS HASTEN DEATH MORE!
This is a serious situation and it should be based in mind that it might be true in so many parts of the world. Again in this situation there are duties conflicts: duties of fidelity reparation, and self-improvement. According to the duties of fidelity, a doctor either agnostic or religious has to enter into an agreement while performing his/her duties and responsibilities as a doctor. The main role of a physician is to help save life by curing and determining kinds of treatments the patients might need to enhance the patient's life. Honoring contracts also lies within this duty and the patient and (in serious situations) the family should be involved in decision-making for ending the life of a terminally ill patient. As Seole says in the article, "to ensure doctors are acting in accordance with thier patient's wishes, the nonreligious doctors should confess their predictions to their patients." This postulates the duties of reparation (rectifying the wrong) in conjuction with the duties of self-improvement (the atheist doctors who may have participated in acts like this on, need to sort it out individually (as oneself) and find ways of improving by practicing medicine ethically and according to their patients' wishes!
Otherwise, the Ross' principles/views are a bit ambiguous and it's hard to tell what is the right from wrong decision to make or which way to choose.
1) Incompetentency- Care/Feminism theory
ReplyDeleteIn such a case where a doctor notices that a colleague does not have the competency to provide care and doesn't say anything due to the doctors being friends, can be applied to ethic of care. There is special attention paid to the friendship of the two doctors which is taking priority over a person or other things.
2. Death
In regards to death, ethic of care would an emphasis on all of the people involved. Ethic of care would give care and pay attention to all of the people that are involved, such as family or friends.
Kant’s Theory
ReplyDelete1st Act only on that maximum through which you an at the same will that it should become a universal law (universalizability)
2nd Treat humanity as end, never as means only
For the first case, according to Kant’s theory the doctors would have to and should have to report the impaired colleagues. According to our notes it states that “a person’s Good will is the only thing which is unconditionally good and forms the foundation of morality in Kant’s ethics. Actions are right if they are done purely if they are done purely from good will, not if they make us feel good and not simply if they bring about good consequences.” So like the others that presented on this case, the doctors are doing good because they are not making them feel good. It is their job and it would be a shame to the patient if something was not reported. I believe according to Kant’s theory that that the negative consequences would be that one would be named a tattle tale because they reported the information to the colleague. According to Kant’s theory it also states that it is their duty to tell the truth. If someone tells a lie then it is violating the Categorical Imperative. Then in this case you would treat someone else as a means to your own end and not an end in himself. So in this case if the doctor was using them just to get money out of it and not treating them with the correct care then the statement just mentioned would be the same. The doctor would not be treating the patients as ends, not an end himself.
For the third case about the donating a kidney, I don’t think that Kant would agree with this because the kidney donor would be getting money from this. So the statement about actions are right if they are done purely from the good will, not if they make us feel good and not simply if they bring about good consequences. I could see this going either way because it may be out of the good for them to donate the kidney, but also they could be doing this because they want the money (good onsequence)
1.)DOCS REPORTING IMPAIRED COLLEAGUES:
ReplyDeleteIn a Utilitarian point of view, the decision of not reporting would be considered unethical. This due to the fact that if a Doctor does not report an impaired or incompatant colleague, more harm may be caused to patients. If the colleague continues to work impaired great harm could be placed on any patient or other colleague they come in contact with. Therefore to deacrease harm for the majority of people, the one colleague must be exposed. Although there may be consequences for exposure, the consequences do not outweigh the consequences that may/do occur under impairment.
2.) ETHICS OF PAYMENT FOR KIDNEY
In a utilitarian point of view this study is questionable. The Utilitarian point of view belives in maximizing goodness or minimizing harm for a mojority. In this case more evidence is needed. Kidney transplants are needed but offering payment could increase risks for the donors, thus causng harm. Also not every kidney donated could be used and therefore risking harm for the donor unnecisarily. Therefore utilitarians may not find payment for donors a means of increasing good for the majority.
Kant's theory is based on the Categorical Imperative
ReplyDelete1st act only on the maxim through which you at the same time will that it should become a universal law
2nd treat humanity as ends, never as means only.
Deotological theory, based on duty. Based on moral rules and Good Will.
Nonreligious doctor could hasten death more
Kant would agree that every doctor should not act according to their personal views on religion. There must be a law that qualifies for everyone, making it universal. There must be one, universal rule that regulates end of life care so that everyone is treated equally. Doctors do not put their own views before the universal law. The doctors are trained to care for patients and must respect their wishes. A lot of Kant’s theory is based on the idea of respect for others (autonomy).
Offering payment to living people who donate a kidney.
Kant would believe this idea to be unethical. A donor would not be acting in complete selflessness because they were being rewarded for their duty. However, if the donor was donating a kidney purely through Good Will, maybe without knowing about a reward, Kant would agree with the idea because then the donor is not used a means only, because they would be rewarded.
Virtue Ethics
ReplyDeleteCase 1-According to virtue ethics a doctor will only report if another doctor is compromised by a substance only if they were taught to do things like that when they were younger. It really all depends on what kind of morals they were taught when they were younger, and the kind of role models they had in their life. Virtue ethics is also known as character-based ethics, so only the doctors will only do what they think is right. The docotrs who didn't report follow colleagues can't be judged because they might have a good character, but they were just taught to do something different in that kind of situation and can have different morals.
Case 2-According to virtue ethics these doctors that are athiest were taught to believe what they believe, or it could have been the environment that they grew up in. However, just because the doctors may have different beliefs they will also know how to use their beliefs to make the right decision because they may be asking themselves, "Even though this is what I think, is it the right thing to do?" You never really know though if these doctors really did let their morals get in the way of letting the patient continue on deep sedation or not because the survey was mailed out.
1.Doctors reluctant to report their impaired or incompetent colleagues:
ReplyDeleteFrom the feminist ethics of care view, women are more reluctant to report an impaired, incompetent colleague. They are more hesitant on reporting a colleague who they have a close relationship with. Feminists are concerned about emotions, relationships, what they owe people, and details in relationships. Feminists have empathy and concern for the well-being of their colleagues and fail to report colleagues. They may believe there is a way their friend can change and they can help them before anyone finds out about their substance abuse or mental health. They want to see their friends/family succeed and would probably risk anything to help them.
2.3,700 doctors in Britain finds that nonreligious doctors hasten death more:
It is true that doctors should not base decisions about a patient's life on their religious beliefs however, feminists would believe religion to be an important factor in determining life/death with a patient. Since feminists are concerned with the well-being of people and are involved in emotions, their opinion would involve doctors acting more upon their religious upbringing. Nonreligious doctors look at life/death situations of patients solely in relation to health and science. I think doctors with religious beliefs would be more sympathetic when talking to a patient about their life/death options.
Ethics of care and feminism
ReplyDelete1. Feminist and caring ethics look at the emotional relationship between individuals. If a doctor did not report an incompetent colleague based on this theory the relationship with that colleague would be very strong in regards to the bad care the doctor's patient may be receiving. Vice versa, if a doctor practicing the feminist approach did not have any obligation to the colleague, then they would report them to assure the patient was receiving the best care possible.
2. A doctor using feminist ethics would work on creating a relationship with a person in their own unique way to go into different depths about dying regardless of religion. I strongly agree that there are many factors that should be taken into consideration as Angie and Melisa stated. The relationship status of the patient and doctor would have the biggest significance how death and dying would be approached.
1. One in three docs wouldn't report...
ReplyDelete(Principles of Biomedical Ethics)
From the autonomy stand point it would be both wrong and right to report a physician because you have to respect the doctor because he did graduate from medical school but you also have to respect the patients because you want them to have proper and complete care. In the case of beneficence and justice one would be between reporting the doctor for the good and fairness of the pt but then it wouldnt be fair if you reported the doctor and there could have been a possibility it wasnt his/her fault and the doctor is also human like anyone else and anything can happen. For non-maleficence it again would be the jugdement of the person reporting the doctor. The doctor could need the job (in the case of possibly being fired) to care for his/her family but the pt should also recieve no harm when they are being cared for medically because that doctor is in charge of that person's care.
2.Nonreligious Doctors Hasten...
For the sake of autonomy both the pt and the doctor should respect each other and their beliefs because beliefs will always be different, but the doctor should also explain everything in detail including consequences and respect the pt's decision. For beneficence the doctor should set aside any beliefs andjudgements to properly care for the pt and what they want, do good by them so they are satisfied in the end. For non-maleficence the doctor shouldnt put the pt at harm in anyway whether it be pain or making them live out a life when they will only end up resulting in a painful death. For justice the doctor should put his/her beliefs aside at all times to insure the pt is getting the most effective and unbiased treatment.
1 in 3 Doctors...
ReplyDeleteDoctors have a responsibility to protect others. The principle of autonomy requires doctors to tell the truth; this includes reporting a fellow doctor who is not performing his work correctly. If a doctor is not doing his job, he is putting his patients' lives at risk, which goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. A doctor who knows about another doctor who is not practicing these principles and does nothing to correct the situation is guilty by association. The principle of justice requires fairness. In not reporting an incompetent doctor, another doctor is not being fair to himself, his colleagues, or his patients.
Study: Nonreligious Docs...
Doctors have an obligation to offer fair advice to a patient regarding treatment, particularly at the end of life. This requires explaining all alternatives, as well as respecting the patient's decision, regardless of whether it follows the doctor's advice, because of the principles of autonomy and beneficence. By abiding by the patient's wishes, the doctors are practicing justice. The principle of non-maleficence says that doctors should not do anything to harm a patient. Therefore, they must act accordingly and try to prevent as much suffering as possible.
Ross' View:
ReplyDeleteCase 1 of 3
My belief is whenever a physician is doing something that could harm a patient or degrade the medical profession in any way, that the physician should be confronted and their actions reported to someone in authority. If faced with this type of circumstance, you would follow Ross’s duty of beneficence meaning to do good.
As much as you would not want to betray or insult a colleague or potentially cause him to lose his livelihood, it is important to keep the health of his patient or colleagues in mind. Confronting one person about his unethical and possibly illegal actions could save the life of another or many others.
Unethical conduct by a fellow physician also affects the medical profession as a whole, in which is another reason to confront a colleague who is not living up to the oath he undertook to help and not harm others at all cost. Physicians who behave unprofessionally or who act in such a way in private or in public as to endanger someone else’s life, erode trust in the entire profession. By turning your back on a colleague who is acting unethically, you could potentially put the lives of many others at risk.
Case 3 of 3
It’s probably safe to say that the debate over organ donation and how we get people to “give” will go on for a long time. You would like to think that everyone would be willing to donate their compatible organs at death, but that is not the case. Many people want to die “whole” even though it is no benefit to them after death. They never consider donating their organs or those of their loved ones. I could see it being a difficult decision for some people, yet this sacrifice would greatly illustrate Ross’s duty of beneficence meaning to do good. Also many individuals and families would be thankful for a second chance for themselves or their loved one to survive which follows Ross’s duty of gratitude.
With so many more organs needed to be donated than people are willing to give, payment for donation is certainly an option. Money is always a motivator for people even in what would seem to be an extreme decision. The biggest problem with an exchange of money for organs, however, would be how this system would be regulated. How would people comply and how would you control a process that leaves so much room for abuse?
Reporting colleagues
ReplyDeleteAccording to Ross, reporting a colleague who is impaired or imcompetent would follow the duties of beneficence because there are those whose condition we can make better by reporting the individual and we can make the individual better by helping them educate themselves more or get rehab for other problems. Patient's will suffer from an inadequate doctor and therefore we could help those patient's by reporting the physician.
Hastening death
According to Ross, a physician should not hasten death due to nonreligious beliefs. This would interfere with nonmaleficence and beneficence. We are to act in a manner that would improve well-being and prevent injury. In that case we should want to do what is best for the patient, not what is easiest for us.
Hastening Death:
ReplyDeleteAccording to utilitarianism, the doctor would do what he thought is benficial to the most people. Setting beliefs aside which is what all patients and doctors should do would allow the doctor to practive utilitariansim because not all people may believe what he believes. Setting his belifs aside allows him to practice in a way that would benefit the most people.
Payments for Kidney Donations:
If kidney donations were to help the most people, then according to the utilitatiansim, then payment for dontations are not a bad thing. But, health and age should definately be considered. As well as why people want to donate their kidney for money
"Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions." -Wiki
ReplyDeleteIn case 2, I can speak to this case from a personal standpoint. There are some atheists who may not practice the best morals, but there are an equal share of theists that ignore morals altogether. As an atheist, I still have firm morals and beliefs that guide my personal and professional life. Just because I lack belief in God, does not mean that I will treat my pts with reckless abandon. Virtue ethics fall right in line with this. The nurse/MD is responsible for their own morals and actions, regardless of their religion. If a nurse were to kill a pt to harvest their organs for another pt, this would still be unethical, even if they had morals backed by God. In my case, God is not needed for me to determine what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Virtue ethics push the point that there are individual exceptions to any possible scenario, thus the individual specific to a particular case should be scrutinized, rather than the entire cohort sporting the same beliefs.
Looking at case 3 from a virtue ethics standpoint, I think judging on the price, motivations, and health of the donor, virtue ethicists would support this system. First of all, because this is a pretty serious surgical procedure, most people considering it would be morally sound and hoping to help others. Now the money aspect is where it can get fishy.. The higher the price of a kidney, the more people who are desperate will be trying to sell their kidneys. A virtue ethics viewpoint would not support this then because it is not fueled by goodwill, but by greed or one's misfortune. If the donor was healthy and willing and understood the risks, then I think, from a virtue ethics standpoint, this would be acceptable.