Ethical Theories Of Acute Rheumatic Fever (ARF)

Acute Rheumatic Fever (ARF) is pressing health issue in New Zealand (NZ) which can lead to heart damage and premature death. It has an unequal distribution through low and high risk groups. The best interest principle and ought implies can are ethical theories which help determine parental obligations in respect to ARF. This essay will explore these theories to determine if ethical obligations exist with a focus on high-risk populations and parental obligations of providing adequate housing.

Acute Rheumatic Fever is caused by an untreated group of A Streptococcal Pharyngitis (GAS) and is an auto-immune disease. It can cause ill health, heart damage and premature death. GAS is both characterised by a sore throat, but can also be asymptomatic.

It is where decisions are made for a non-competent individual (such as a child) which optimally serve the individual’s interests. For this principle, it involves weighing up the harms and benefits in order to determine the best interests of the child (Kopelman, 1997). The best interest principle aligns with most consequentialist theory as right decision to make involves the one with the best consequences and thus, in the best interests of the child (Mulgan, 2001). Although, for a consequentialist everyone’s interests count equally and this does not occur for the best interest principle as you put your own child’s interests above others (Griffin, 1992). This can be seen as one of the main pitfalls of this principle. Blustein (2012), extents on this idea that the best interest principle can be seen to convey the wrong message to parents. The principle suggests that parents should dedicate themselves to do what is best for their own child and not to consider the needs of other children. This is not necessarily the morally right thing to do. An example of this is where it may be in the child’s best interest to go to school even when they have Streptococcal A, but it is not what is best for other children as they might receive the virus. Another critique of the principle suggests that it places excessive demands on parents as they would constantly require them to do what is best for their child. This insinuates that parents

In reducing the risk for ARF parents need to provide adequate housing for their children. A parent’s obligations don’t always reflect what is in the best interests of the child. The best interest principle has a sequence that is followed in order to determine what the best interest of the child is (Kopelman, 1997). Firstly, we need to identify the available options for the child and in this case, is to spend income on providing adequate, not overcrowded housing or to not do this and use the income elsewhere. The second step involves identifying all of the implicated interests of the child. The other interests of the child are spending income on attending a better school or going on a holiday. Therefore, the opportunity cost of spending income on better housing would be either attending a better school or a holiday. Next, we need to establish a hierarchy of these interests. At each stage this model could produce a different end as people have different beliefs and attitudes as to what the child’s interests are and what is most important. In this instance, a better education may be more important for the child. This is because having a quality education could help break the poverty cycle so they have a better opportunity to be of a higher socioeconomic status group in the future. The fourth stage, looks at how each option affects each interest. The option of going on a holiday can have a positive impact on