In my mind the most important unanswered question raised during our class meeting would be, “how to decide what to do in a situation like case 5-2 and living with the decision afterwards” case 5-2 regarded the 77 year old Jamaican woman and the dilemma the doctor was in, in terms of discharging her or keeping her and raising the prices for the other patients. During class we discussed what people would do but because I have different ideas on what I would have done. If I had decided to discharge her I would remember it all the time. I would feel so broken inside for doing that. I would neglect a person’s life to accommodate my place of employments financial situation. Further, the question is, how does a person or myself handle living with the effects of a decision that one is forced to make? …show more content…
I believe the most important point with the readings of chapters 6, 7 and 8 for this week is the way paternalism plays into ethical cases. Sometimes it is easy and others very difficult to solve a dilemma that might require paternalism, but in cases like 6-2, the case about the twelve year old girl that seems to be mature enough to reject a heart transplant that also has her parents on board. The doctor however doesn’t agree. The point to me is should paternalism be given to the doctor after court hearings? It’s a very complicated case. Beneficence and autonomy are clashing in this