Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Jeremy, the patient, in this case study suffers from aplastic anemia which causes your body to lack the production of new blood cells. Along with this medical deficiency, he is also a committed Jehovahs Witness in which he stands for the practice of abstaining from blood. Jeremy even vocalized this concern to his doctor, Derek, when he stated, He would rather die than act against his faith . Derek knowing this vocalized concern then proceeds to lie saying no blood will be in the transplant. Although one may think he did that as an attempt to save his life, he also robbed him of his autonomy. This medical decision was an innovative complexity against the Kantian standards of morality and ethics. My argument will deliver and back up the Kantian rules of autonomy, utilitarian negligence to provide beneficence for the patient, and the conflicting argument of whether treatment goes against the ethical principle of non-maleficence.
To strengthen my argument and to sanction the true maxim of the Kantian viewpoint. (Veatch,206) I believe it is vital to point out that the doctor’s disobedient stunt undermines Jeremys rights by treating him as a means rather than an end. (Misselbrook,211) We can conclude from the medical information provided in this case study that Jeremy meets the requisite capacities to decide to refuse a blood transfusion even if it would result in death. With this request being for a rational religious reason and not for an irrational or unresponsive reasoning it would therefore be rational in this domain to honor Jeremys wishes. Site ThisIn the acting of reasoning, for Kants view on an intrinsic worth, Jeremy, serves as a rational agent capable of making the fatal decision of refusing the blood transfusion if it contained blood. Kant, also stood for the importance of consistency and that no rational person can deny it. (Rachels,10) Connecting this Kantian mindset to this case study, it is very clear that the doctor is a rational agent making an irrational decision of lying, breaking this rule of consistency and therefore autonomy.
Kants theory rejected by coercion and the Utilitarian viewpoint of using the act of benefit to support the doctors reasoning behind lying and giving the blood transfusion creates a conflict. Not only is the doctors deciding factor to perform the transfusion ruled as irrational it also views consequences as a criterion for moral action in which case Kant disagrees. (Johnson,13) In addition, the harm principle also supports this reasoning, as there is no way to rationalize the magnitude of pain and suffering Jeremy may feel. One can only imagine how difficult it must be for him to find out that the doctor went against his right to autonomy. The doctors decision to lie to Jeremy is also treating Jeremy as if he is an instrument and incapable of making such rational reasoning. Although, this belief of Jeremys may be different than the doctors belief. Jeremy still has the right to the desire fulfillment theory which allows individuals to be rational when making dangerous decisions if it is of more value to the individual. (Savulescu,11)
Furthermore, when regarding the act of beneficence and looking more into the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. One can see a similar result where the lack of Jeremys rights of autonomy interferes with the Oath of Hippocrates’ definition of nonmaleficence as, first, not harm, since the Doctor’s lying is an act of harm. (Johnson, 3. B) All of this falls under the primary justification principle, which requires health professionals to have a consistent set of standards. Within these set of standards that are made by both Utilitarians and Kantians, they have come to an agreement that the principle of autonomy trumps all other principles. (Misselbrook,102)That is the case as long as the individuals capacity is within the requisite capacities to allow them to make capable life decisions which we ruled Jeremys as requisite up above. Therefore, based on Kantian rules of autonomy, utilitarian negligence to provide beneficence for the patient, and the conflicting argument of whether treatment goes against the ethical principle of non-maleficence it can be proven that Dereks actions were morally unjust due to the power of the autonomy principle.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.