NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES

NAME

INSTITUTION

Ethics is a fundamental requirement in any given profession. Therefore, it ought to be upheld with at-most consideration it deserves. In the above case study I, as the doctor, have a moral responsibility to take care of my patient. The life of the four-year-old girl is at stake if she does not receive a kidney transplant. The father of the child is a perfect match; however, he is afraid of donating a kidney to his daughter. In medical ethics, is it ethical for a doctor to watch a patient die while he or she can do something that will save the life of the patient? Therefore, I will be obligated to counsel the father so that the child can receive a transplant and live a better life (Gillon, 1986).

In this case study, as the doctor, I will apply two moral theories that will aid in making the decision to better the life of my patient and not harm confidentiality of the donor. The value for people’s autonomy is a crucial moral theory that ought to be used (Gillon, 1986). Autonomy is the ability or capacity of a person to make own choices in regard to the events that affect his or her life. Each of us has simply to echo on how morally offended we turn out to be (or would become) if somebody tries to enforce decisions upon us. It is very important noting that it is difficult to account for who falls into the autonomous bracket when putting this principle into practice. It is common knowledge that children cannot make medical decisions by themselves. This begs the question, when can a child be considered to be mature enough so that they are considered autonomous to enable their decisions be respected and upheld? (Gillon, 1986). For instance, in this case study, the child is four-years-old. It is clear that she is still a minor and maybe does not even know what is wrong with her health. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the doctor to take the patient’s (in this case the four-year-old girl) best interest into heart.

Still referring to the scope of autonomy, is a very emotionally invested donor adequate to make an unbiased decision regarding donation of an organ? Or will the donor undergo emotional blackmail due to the strongly invested emotions to the receiver? In this case, the father is a perfect match to his daughter. It is obvious that the father has strongly invested emotions in the daughter. Therefore, he is not the appropriate candidate to donate the kidney. However, the daughter does not have time to live; hence the father is the only hope. Therefore, as a doctor, I ought to take my stand and seek professional counseling for the father so that he can understand that his daughter’s life lies in his hands. However, it does not seem appropriate for me to report the father to the family without his consent. This is because the father will undergo emotional blackmail hence go against the principle of autonomy. As a result, I will have failed in my duty as a doctor in upholding moral ethics while practicing medicine.

Another key principle applicable in this case is the principle of beneficence (Gillon, 1986). Beneficence is a combination of two Latin words, bene and facere. Bene means well or good and facere means to do. Therefore, the term collectively translates to mean good. It is, therefore, a universal obligation in any profession to uphold it, and a fundamental moral obligation for all healthcare professionals to utilize it. A situation where the health worker acts to benefit himself is highly disregarded. Therefore, all parties involved have to be taken into account when deciding on the path to take. Two principles are applied in this principle, the principle of positive beneficence and utility principle. Under positive beneficence, physicians are obligated to do good for their patients hence the society as a whole. Under utility, the risks of harm ought to be weighed with possible good; hence maximize the benefits that are to be awarded and reduce risks or harm (Gillon, 1986). In this case study, it is the responsibility of the physician to take the interests of the child into account. This is because, with a transplant, the child will live a better life. Therefore, I will apply the principle of positive beneficence because the child will be benefiting from the transplant with no to little harm done to the father. Under the utility principle, I ought to weigh the good that will be attached to the child ad the harm that will befall the father. It is a well-known fact that a human being can live a long, fulfilling life with just one kidney. Therefore, less harm will be done to the father if he donates the kidney. Specifically, the father will only be affected with the scar that is left on his body if the harvesting surgery is successful. On to the child, the availability of a viable and healthy kidney will enable her live a long and healthy lifestyle (Gillon, 1986).

However, physicians are usually faced with a dilemma in situations where the beneficence is pegged with paternalism (Gillon, 1986). It usually occurs in relation to the principle of autonomy and beneficence. Certain medical cases that involve paternalism demand that beneficence ought to take precedence over the principle of autonomy. Therefore, in this case study, the principle of beneficence will be given the most respect. This is because the principle of autonomy will provide the parent with the option of not providing the kidney hence the child dies. It is key to state that a patient’s health is the groundwork of any physician. If physicians fail to maintain the health of their patients, they have failed in the provision of healthcare. Therefore, I as ea physician in this case study, will provide healthcare to my patient if I uphold the benefit she is to incur in case she undergoes the transplant. Doing this will force me to utilize the beneficence principle, because the patient will benefit more in regard to what the father will lose. However, it is also of paramount importance to note that consent from the father ought to be given. Consequentially, he will have to undergo counseling so that he can become aware of the benefits his actions will have to the child. Since the father has some reservations about donating the kidney, already, it is very recommendable that he receives counselling.

Reference

Gillon, R. (1986). Philosophical Medical Ethics. Chichester, NY: Wiley.