Gress’s position is not morally legitimate, and the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and autonomy render it morally wrong. Paternalism is strongly present in this situation: the patients were not asked whether or not they would like to be informed of the new information that their doctor acquired. Furthermore, Dr. Gress stated that he had “an obligation not to notify them” (Munson 328); however, doctors have a duty to tell even the unfortunate truths to their patients. What Dr. Gress decided was, “on the basis of his own values, that he knows what is best for another person” (Week 2 Ppt Slide 2). Also, he was denying the patients’ autonomy.
The film “Miss Evers’ Boys,” based on a true story, talks about an experiment done on African American men. At first the men were to be treated for syphilis, however there were too many men infected with syphilis. They quickly ran out of money and had to find someone to sponsor them in order to treat the men. When Dr. Brodus and Dr. Douglas went to Washington, the sponsors told them that the only way they would give them the money was if they did an experiment on them. In the experiment they would only make them believe they are treating them, when in reality they aren’t.
Feldshuh includes Douglas’s description towards the importance of the study to signify the ease of justifying a cause; however it is intentional that Doctor Douglas does not reveal the true purpose of the study to the patients. Douglas has effectively begun dehumanizing the patients, he does not think the patients as being capable of understanding the importance of the study, and the risks associated. No efforts towards discussing the study or treatment are made with the patients, and Nurse Evers by supporting the study begins compromising her oath and her position as a nurse, as indicated by her
In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, she describes benevolent deception, which doctors had no trouble of doing in the mid-century, as the doctors keeping their patients in the dark. Other times were not even giving their patients a proper diagnosis. The
David writes how he felt as though he was to blame in some way although he was a great father, even after divorcing Nic’s mother. A doctor explains to David that addiction is a disease and the symptom of that disease is using the drug and being out of control, powerless against the drug; the doctor also explains that insurance companies cover disease, addiction being one of those diseases because if it wasn’t your insurance company surely would not cover rehabilitation. But if we are to scrap the disease concept and replace it with something valid, our new explanation must retain all the beneficial aspects of the disease concept. It must not allow moralizing or any other negative attributions to people suffering with addictions. In fact, we'd hope an alternative explanation would have more value than the disease label, by giving people with addictions something the disease concept lacks: an understanding that is useful for treating the problem.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Although, I see the reasoning behind not requiring vaccinations. Every person has the right, but if they are going to harm the rest of the human race just because they do not vaccinations I do not agree with that. I do believe that vaccinations are a good thing and should be
This begs the query, what has transpired to their commitment taken on oath to use their skills only for the benefit of their patients? The society’s anticipations of principled conduct from the medical practitioners have been unceasingly dropped by what looks to be a total disregard for the long-established trust that has existed between the patient and the doctor. A medical practitioner and a patient’s relationship is always a special one and technically privileged because it depends on the trust that the patient has in the practitioner’s professionalism. The medical practitioners must therefore have a primary responsibility that guides them to act in the best interest of their patients without an influence of personal consideration . There are a number of shortfalls of the Act in providing for the Board to curb medical malpractice and carrying out their obligations in Kenya.
Having the fear of being mistreated and used for experimentation made the Lacks’ even more upset about Henrietta’s death. They were not educated so when the doctor would say something scientific they would trust every word while not even understanding what he was saying. This part of informed consent was stressed throughout the book because in today’s society most people have enough education to have a general idea what is going on when they are at the hospital about to have a procedure done, making it seem