Mr Simpson Flu Shot Essay

Mr. Simpson is eight years old has a weak lungs, if he get flu he has shown some complicated side effects such as bronchitis. His doctor recommended him that he take flu shot this time as another flu season is coming around. Mr. Simpson been told by doctor if he take the flu shot he will be in good health, if not flu will likely going to kill him and Mr. Simpson refuses to take shot. According Hippocratic Oath doctors have obligation to do no harm to their patient. Doctor should inform their patient benefit and consequence of their decision when treating them (Vaughn 73). In Mr. Simpson case doctor should listen to him not his family since he have every right to decide anything he want according to ethics. Mr. Simpson know what is good or bad for him, since he have full life of experience, and he believe flu by itself is not going to kill him. We can look this case from different ethical perspectives which are autonomy, paternalism, informed consent, and competence. And then I want present and respond counter argument. First, Mr. Simpson have right to not take the flu shot because, he have the right autonomy, which give him capacity of self-determination do whatever he choose. According to autonomy principle, Mr.

Simpson that he should listen to his family and doctors and take the flu shot, so he could be in good health. But he refuse to take flu shot because he believe the flu shot by itself is likely to give him the flu and risk his life. You can argue that Mr. Simpson have right to determine his fate as long as he don’t harm anyone which was given to him by the principles of autonomy. And you can also argue that he have the right of competence, which is the ability of him make his own decision good or bad. We can respond to both of this claim by saying the decision made by Mr. Simpson was not beneficial to him rather the choice he made going to cost his life. He should be listening to his family and doctor for his own