Medical Ethics Argument Paper

I will argue that it would be morally right for Dr. Schneider to inform the patient of the circumstances and make further decisions after conversing with the individual. I will demonstrate that there are extremely important differences between telling a patient of the pharmaceutical placebo replacement and giving a patient a placebo without their knowledge. These distinctions undermine the argument of whether or not it is permissible to implement an act such as this. I believe that Dr. Schneider committed ethically immoral actions because he gave the patient pure lactose pills, instead of the initial prescription, without her authorization. This topic is philosophically important because numerous issues can arise from the situation if the correct

Autonomy is the concept of balanced interferences of self-determination. In regards to this situation, autonomy is important. Promoting autonomous behavior in the medical field entails the patient to freely make decisions among themselves. More precisely, this claim implies that Dr. Schneider did not take his patients’ autonomy into consideration by not allowing her to make the decision herself. In this situation, the value of autonomy supports the idea of Mrs. Akers being able to decide whether or not she thinks that the placebos pills should be used. Based on this idea, he should take future actions to consider Mrs. Akers’ autonomy. Following her colon malignancy, Mrs. Akers has been a healthy individual. A healthy individual is entirely able to follow their own autonomy through decision-making. Considering that she is a healthy patient, she should be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to continue to placebo pills. With the use of full disclosure, an informed patient is a better patient and given the necessary information, patients can make their own choices. By following the principle of autonomy, Dr. Schneider will be ensuing the idea that a coherent individual is authorized to control their own life and the intact

Established by Kantian ethics is the duty of our actions. Kant states that through reflection and reason we can acquire our duties from the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral obligation that is not contingent on a specific individual. I find this claim credible especially in conflicts between patients and their physicians. This assertion is convincing based on the following reasons of equality, universality and responsibility. As a part of a physicians’ duties, all patients must be treated the same with value. In this case, Dr. Schneider did not inform Mrs. Akers appropriately whereas he might have educated other patients. Due to this, Dr. Schneider must use absolute truth telling in regards to all of his patients. Though Immanuel Kant does not unambiguously state the idea of universality, it seems that he is supposing it anyways. Given this argument, Dr. Schneider must follow the same rules that all other doctors follow. It is important to understand that Dr. Schneider not only disobeyed this regulation, but also violated his patient. Founded upon this, he should consult the patient of the incidents that have been occurring with her medicine. By taking initiative, Dr. Schneider would not be accountable for tragic situations that may arise. In addition, Kantian ethics describe that lying is not rational. Since Dr. Schneider lied, he was not being a rational