Medical Ethics Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Medical Ethics Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1534

  • Pages: 6

Medical Ethics

Living in the land of opportunity and freedom has its limits. There is an expectation that every time we visit our doctor’s office that we all will get the highest amount of respect and help that can be given. Growing up, throughout my whole life I have been in and out of the emergency room more times than any normal person probably should have. Just only eleven months ago, I severely fractured my calcaneus (heel bone) into three separate pieces and had to stay in the hospital for four days due to surgery. Throughout my countless surgeries and visits to the hospital, I cannot imagine myself in a situation where the a doctor would refuse to give treatment or perform any type of procedure to anyone due to his or her personal belief whether it be based on race, sexual preference, political beliefs, or frankly any other reason.

Today there are many Doctors who are refusing medical assistance to patients because of their own personal religious and even political beliefs and values. It turns out that a doctor’s ability to refuse any kind of service is legal. Randi Kaye, a CNN Correspondent interviewed Dr. Edward Langston at The American Medical Association. The AMA along with the many Doctors agree “Any physician as the opportunity that if because of personal beliefs religious or moral beliefs that they can refuse to provide services, but we also believe that physician has an obligation to provide an avenue where the patient can get the care that they’re seeking,”. One particular case dealing with a man in New Jersey, written by Rmuse, an advocate for freedom of religion and particularly, freedom of no religion. Joao Simoes, a gay, and HIV positive patient at a Catholic Hospital. Dr. Susan V. Borga, came into his room while looking at the medical file. She looked at Joao Simoes and asked him how he contracted HIV. Simoes confirmed that he contracted the virus through unprotected sex.

Dr. Borga then asked if it was due to unprotected sex with another man. As soon as he confirmed that yes, it was with another man, Borga closed his file walked out of his room. Simoes was not allowed to contact his personal physician for three day to help get medication. When he was finally allowed to contact his physician, he was told that he had already spoken to Dr. Borga informing her that Simoes needed his medication. Her response to the physician was that he must also be gay being that he was his doctor. This was followed by “This is what he gets for going against God’s will.” Simone was finally able to get his medication after the hospital allowed his sister to visit and saw that she gave his medication to the nurses.

Another case dealt with a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Wisconsin. Due to this pharmacy being a very busy pharmacy, they contacted a temporary agency because they need temporary assistant. This temporary employee informed Wal-Mart through a written statement that due to his religious beliefs, he would not be able to handle any clients that had any issues with or relating any form of contraception. Wal-Mart decided to compromise with the new employee to where he passes on the client to another pharmacist. When calls were made dealing with contraception, he would place them on hold and not inform anyone. When patients would pick up a birth control prescription, he would walk away and not tell anyone there was a patient waiting. Wal-Mart then tried again to compromise, but when realizing there would be no resolution, he was fired. A last case explained by Jessica Dweck occurred in Florida. “Florida physician Jack Cassell taped a sign to his office door advising Obama supporters to “seek urologic care elsewhere.” The only way that this doctor could be sued successfully is if the patient is currently being treated and was in need of care, that the doctor ceased care without a proper notice or referral for another doctor. A doctor’s visit in not based on political views. The relationship between a doctor and a patient should be based on the physical and emotional wellbeing of the patient.

The main question and concern should be why in the year 2014, when the United States is dealing with terrorism, and teenagers going on a shooting spree at their high schools, is there such a clause that allows Doctors to refuse medical attention towards friendly, innocent Americans based on hatred? Why is it that after so many years of war and innocent blood shed is there still a clause that allows Doctors to refuse medical assistance on the base of religious or personal beliefs? In an online article” Pharmacist Conscience Clause: Laws and Information” explains the reason why it was enacted. The conscience clause was first executed in response to the Supreme Court decision in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade case during the woman’s rights movement. Roe v. Wade ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortion except to save the life of the mother. This response caused major uproar to the point where some states proposed legislation and passed laws allowing them to refuse abortions in their establishment. It went as far as pharmacist refusing in supplying refills and prescriptions of contraceptives. These actions resulted in the enactment of the conscience clause. The conscience clause was enacted in order to protect medical professionals from legal action for refusing to assist with contraception and abortion. In fact, many states began to follow with their own conscience clause which also allowed them to refuse medical service and prescription refills according to their idealistic beliefs. Unfortunately, there are also laws that that allows doctors to refuse medical attention to patients due to racism, sexism, or any type of hatred.

“Since 2005, twenty-seven states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights-much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. “It’s written so badly there is no protection for patients,” (Erdely). It is mind boggling to see that this is allowed in the” land of the free”, the State where the people are allowed to be who they want to be, and the possibilities of living a successful and happy life are endless. What seems to be going on, and what we probably should be concerned about is that doctors are taking advantage of the clause and finding loopholes to be able to act upon their bigotry. The system seems to be seriously broken. If something is wrong than it is up to us to make them right. The main concern then should be getting the Obama administration to revoke the conscience clause that was put in place by President Bush right before he left office. If people began signing petitions, and calling the news stations to publicly get the word of the unfair treatment of patients needing medical attention. This method surely would be a great starts in fighting against these unfair acts.

Once the word is out on the streets, multiple legal actions should start to be put into place towards those doctors that placed many lives at risk or altered their lives to a point where they did not want to be. Such examples would be women who were brutally raped and were forced to have the babe due to doctors refusing to help. Or women losing their lives because of internal infections caused by pregnancy.

It is a safe bet that what people want is a life where there is no judgment. A life where the color of skin, political party we, sexual interest, and lastly choices in life that are made good or bad, should not be the determinant nor reason to be handed down a death sentence (Rmuse). Our country should not be stepping back into a life of hate, disregard, and prejudice towards one another. It should be taking a step forward to a place where we all get properly treated and be refused a health service because of hatred.

Works Cited
Dweck, Jessica. “Can Doctors Refuse to Treat Patients Based on Their Political Beliefs?” Slate Magazine. N.p., 6 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 July 2014.

Erdely, Sabrina Rubin. “Doctors’ Beliefs Can Hinder Patient Care.” Msnbc.com. N.p., 22 June 2007. Web. 08 July 2014.

Kaye, Randi. “When Doctors Play Judge.” CNN. Cable News Network, 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 09 July 2014.

“Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Information.” Pharmacist Conscience Clauses Laws and Information. National Conference of State Legislatures, May 2012. Web. 06 July 2014.

Rmuse. “Conservative Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists Create Death Panels By Abusing Conscience Clause.” PoliticusUSA. N.p., 4 June 2012. Web. 09 July 2014.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts

Medical Ethics Essay

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Medical Ethics Essay
Rate this post

  • University/College:
    University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Words: 1737

  • Pages: 7

Medical Ethics

Medical interventions always possess two possible outcomes in every situation or case. The principle of double effect is the actual ethics that governs the conditions of alternatives. The main concept that it utilizes is the thought that persons are faced with decision that cannot be avoided and, in the circumstances, the decision will cause both desirable and undesirable effects. Considering the value ethics involved in every intervention implemented, the risk factors should always be considered.

Essentially speaking, the principle of double effect involves the critical assessment of the situation considering the fact that the choices being made greatly impact a life of an individual. In an ethical controversy of maternal-fetal conditions wherein the mother is suffering from a case of complications that lead to the severe necessity of evacuating the conception product. The case possesses no other alternatives, and has greatly compromised both life conditions of the mother and the fetus. Moreover, if medical intervention is not implemented as soon as possible both lives shall be endangered severely.

In some part of logical implication, some might categorize such action as direct attempt of killing; essentially since, either of the mother’s life or the fetal life needs to be sacrificed in order to save one. In such case of saving life through resuscitation, if the significant relatives or others imposed the negation of such life saving treatment for the patient provided with the considerations of higher good than evil, it is not considered anymore as actions of euthanasia nor direct killing.

The medical provider is not anymore liable if incase the patient suffered from any untoward conditions that requires resuscitation, however in the end resulted to death, as it is already a directed will of the patient and the support groups. The principle of total effect protects no singular parts or single levels of life. In fact, it does even consider the whole or total person as a whole. The whole or total person is what is sacred and has rights. To promote parts or lower levels independently of the person’s totality would violate just the quality of life considerations.

The medical provider should consider the treatment interventions not only for the benefit of a single part, but rather every aspect of the whole body, such as the effect of the therapy or medical intervention on other parts of the body. Psychotherapy involves the utmost obligation to facilitate the psychological health and well-being of the society. As far as medico-ethics is concerned, psychiatrists possess such responsibility of conjuring psychological health to the people.

Such principle involves the concept of the divine as well as the societal requirement of psychological health linked together with the guidelines of psychotherapeutical interventions. Such principle considers man as a psychic unit and total aspect of a person as a whole. Considering the fact that man functions as a whole, psychiatric therapy should revolve in every aspect of a person not only on particularities of disease, disorder, or signs and symptoms but rather as a whole unified being.

However, still in response to this perspective, the concept of the individual should still deal in the specifics and objective details of an individual. The guide protocols of this principle are the fact that man is a unified unit of the community that requires social interactions, and morality considerations over the psychological interventions. Rights to Health Care The general principle of health care greatly considers that every individual possesses the right to have unconditional, indiscriminate, and with no considerations on an individual’s society.

The rights of health care, by law, divine protocols and natural necessities, should be ethically available for every individual. As for the ever conjuring issues in terms of impairment of the delivery of health care, it is both the responsibility of the patient and the health care provider to facilitate maximum health care potential. The health seeking behavior is expected for the patients requiring health care needs as their responsibility, while health care information dissemination, motivation and encouragement are the ethical duties of the health care providers.

With the advent of managerial, profit-oriented and progressive modernization, the principle of the health care basic right is arguably being violated in some sense. As the fact states, at least 35 million Americans cannot afford proper health care delivery system for them due to either expensive medical insurance requirements or poverty. As for the both interacting requirement, most of the public, especially those living in or below poverty line, undeniably obtains their medical care from governmental provisions, which are not always sufficient to consider every individual’s health care needs.

In fact, Medicaid insurance, which is a public insurance firm that caters mostly for the financially incapacitated individuals, is extensively and progressively increasing. However, the worst case of such Medicaid provision is that sickness status possesses a marginal requirement to consider a person a candidate for health care treatment. In such case, the health care status of these individuals worsens before they can even attain their due medical interventions.

Another controversy is the rising patients of Medicare insurance, which is a public governmental firm that caters to elderly health care welfare. Due to the increasing number of those that cannot afford geriatric care necessities, the last option for these elders is to obtain the care that the government hospitals provide. However, there are cases wherein these elderly incapacitated individuals are being eagerly discharged by the hospital. Adding on to the situation is the increasing profit-oriented hospital firms, which perceives delivery of care as business-money-earning sources.

Such condition is beginning to coincide and dominate the health care market, which if not regulated, may even caused further decline of health care obtainment by the public due to financial incongruencies. Considering that the incidence of poverty in the public is increasing, incapabilities of health care insurance to support the appropriate and adequate requirements of their beneficiaries, and the increasing incidence of profit oriented hospitals, greatly contributes to the health care scarcity and health care status of the society.

Essentially speaking, such condition possesses the possibility of aggravating the morbidity and mortality ratings in the society. Such case is considered indeed as violations of the ethical principle of right of health care. On the contrary, such protocols are necessary in order to keep the hospital and medical insurance organizations surviving. Although, the evident consequence of such scenario is the increasing individuals suffering from health care impairments. As far as the ethical principle, rights of health care, is concerned, such occurring scenario violates the fundamental ethics of health care.

Suffering Even with subjective evidences or manifestations, the concept of suffering seems central for the most fundamental concerns of bioethics. Suffering is in part constituted by the experience of a profound evil, as the Old Testament denotes, or threat to our sense of self and identity that we are unable to control. IT is the experience of the inexplicably arbitrary and typically destructive. Suffering is not of course an end of religious experience but a problem demanding interpretation.

Religions traditions have historically tried to give meaning to suffering by placing the experience in a context of broader questions about ultimate purpose in life, and even human destiny beyond life. Suffering is knowledge of evil but is not evil in itself. Frequently its existence serves as a helpful spiritual or physical warning that something is amiss. Physical pain is often first sign of a serious illness; it informs us that something has gone wrong and that we need medical assistance. Of course, sometimes we become aware of evil but are unable to do anything about the situation.

The evil is not in our knowledge of a certain state of affairs but in the state of affairs themselves. While we experience our knowledge of these evils as suffering, the knowledge itself remains a basic good. As salvation denotes liberation from evil, Christ liberates man from sin by means of His cross, that is, by means of suffering. The work of salvation is a labor of suffering. Every person is called to participate personally in that suffering through which our redemption has been accomplished and through which all suffering was redeemed.

Suffering, symbolizes by the Cross, is the one universal door through which all must pass to enter the kingdom of God. While on the human level suffering is an “emptying,” on the divine level it is a glorifying or a “filling up” and an invitation to manifest the moral greatness of man. The glory of suffering cannot be seen in the martyrs, but also in those who, while not believing in Christ, suffer and give their lives for the truth. As for a Christian perspective, suffering is an opportunity for everyone to experience the power of God and share in the work of redemption.

In the midst of each individual’s suffering, Christ is present to share that person’s suffering-just as He invites each of us to share His sufferings. This inter-participation of suffering unites our sufferings and Christ’s sufferings, as well as uniting us with Christ personally. In terms of the medical ethics application, suffering is for both patient and the health care provider to share; however, one must not join each one and extend the same negative feelings but rather, facilitate as the motivator and alleviator of sufferings.

The greatest part of relieving the patient from the occurring suffering is on the part of the health care provider, as they are the ones who are responsible for the alleviation of such condition. The suffering of undergoing the case of alleviation and the suffering of alleviating the patient itself are the two considered faces of suffering, which has to be considered in every ethical case action. In is indeed necessary to think that the difficulties imposed by the situation is carried by both interacting parties and not one alone.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

About the author

admin

View all posts