Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Autonomy medical ethics case
Autonomy in patient's rights
Autonomy medical ethics case
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Autonomy medical ethics case
Autonomy in patient's rights
Autonomy medical ethics case
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Autonomy medical ethics case
Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.
One thing stated by the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing is that there is a variation between doing and allowing. It is morally wrong to do a harm rather than allowing a harm to happen. She speaks of two types of duties: positive and negative. She speaks of negative duties or rights, “when thinking of the obligation to refrain from such things as killing or robbing” (380). Foot explains that a negative right is a right which is not to be harmed.
This is the idea behind the rhetoric of ‘necessary evils’. E.g., one can say that abortion is impermissible (the end is termination of a foetus) while an operation which results in the death of a foetus but saves a pregnant woman’s life is arguably permissible (the end is saving a life, the means is the termination of a foetus). The concept of positive duty is to give aid to others. Negative duty is not harming others.
(Wijze 218) Here, the “Great Harms” is a reference to the ideas that people consider to be evil based on their own beliefs. Consequently, condition C Is “The action or project which seeks to annihilate the “moral landscape.” (Wijze 218) The three conditions help us understand why evil
An answer presented is that since we only regard deprivations as a bad if they unjustifiably add to the evil we must all face in life, only dying prematurely could be considered bad. Nagel’s final response to this question is that if whether or not we interpret death as negative depends on the point of view we have towards
There are two positives to not undergoing life-sustaining medication, therapy or interventions.
In order for an individual to be considered well-intentioned, they must uphold the same
153). This passage explains Quinn’s focus on narrowing the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing to incorporate morality, as does Thomson. Both individuals are drawn to the idea of a more detailed or revised version of the traditional Doctrine of Doing & Allowing, yet there does not seem to be a distinct difference between their thoughts. Quinn is mainly concerned with this idea of a “Harmful positive agency,” which is “an agent’s most direct contribution to the harm…an action,” and a “Harmful negative agency,” which is “the most direction contribution in an inaction, a failure to prevent the harm.” (Quinn, pg. 163).
The researchers are not looking out for the health or the safety of the terminally ill patients in this case – they are simply trying to further their own purpose and reach their goal. In order to treat the terminally ill sufferers as a means, but not merely as a means, the researchers and the patients must be in a consensual and mutually benefitting position – however, half of the participants of the study are receiving placebos, and the other half are under duress as they do not know if they are receiving treatment or a placebo. This raises the idea of a mortality salience in the participants – they are highly aware of their own death and ending because they are not sure if they are receiving treatment, so they are aware that any given moment, they are dying. As well, a key facet of scientific studies are in that they are voluntary – people give consent to participate without pressure. However, when the only other option available is facing certain death, there is a heavy pressure placed on participating in the study, and the choice is not made with full consent given.
In cases when the pharmacological therapy can’t improve patient’s quality of life. Especially, when the patient keeps suffering from pain of the disease state and its complications. wouldn’t it be a better option to end the patient’s life rather than have the family witness the last memories of their loved ones in a deteriorating state? In addition, those resource can be allocated to treat patients who can benefit from the treatment and live with a better quality of
Morals and common sense also have a play in whether to use palliative sedation. I think the fear of legal action from the family stops many medical doctors from using sedation. My personal back story of when my Aunt had a disease where she couldn’t fend for herself anymore; she couldn’t wash herself, she couldn’t feed herself nor do anything that a normal person could do. She eventually was hospitalized for months and was always in pain. I killed me and my family to know that there wasn’t anything for us to do about how she was feeling.
Deontology which is derived from the Greek words Deon (meaning obligation/duty) and logia (science/study) combined to be also known as duty or rule-based ethics or the study of duties or obligations. It is a branch of ethical theories that deals with ethics of conduct, which theories are based on the sort of actions people must perform. It is based on non-consequentialism where the ends do not justify the means and thus deontology is an approach to ethics in which a sense of duty or principle prescribes the ethical decision (Preston, 2007). Deontology affirms duties must be obeyed regardless of the consequences. The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas.
Secondly, defeasibility, whenever a statement is found in question to be false by showing proofs or evidences. Thirdly, accident, when it comes to show that the unpleasant incident was happened accidentally and unintentionally. The accused may retreat from the responsibility of this unpleasant accident. Lastly is about good intention. The accused may claims that this offensive act was doing in the best of intention but not in any form of recklessness.
The doctrine of double effect states that in certain situations, ceteris paribus, it’s permissible to perform any good action, even if it comes with a lethal consequence, as long as one does not directly intend the unfortunate outcome. In other words, to carry out a wrong action for the purpose of achieving a good effect is never permissible, but foreseeing an unavoidable harm as the necessary byproduct of your right action is permissible. With this moral theory your action produces two effects: the one aimed at, and the one effect foreseen but may not have been intended. One must be able to tell the difference between oblique intention and direct intention when assessing a moral dilemma. For example, in this case of the man Smith who is abducted