John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review

One of the most agonizing decisions a medical professional can make comes when viable internal organs become available for transplant, because the current system of transplant lists often necessitates a time-sensitive evaluation of several candidates to determine who should receive the desperately needed operation. The ethical dilemma presented by the activity You Decide, in which three individuals coming from vastly different circumstances are eligible to receive a heart transplant, represents an all too common situation within the medical profession, and despite the intense emotional stakes involved, the most effective and efficient decision making process is one based on careful consideration of the ethical ramifications involved. Due to the enormous pressure involved in the transplantation of vital organs, a process which must be undertaken with immediacy, medical professionals often rely on the predetermined structural boundaries of respected philosophical tenets. The utilitarian ethical philosophy advanced by the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, each of whom argued that deciding the most morally acceptable course of action required the clinical application of logical reasoning, is epitomized by Bentham's famous axiom that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" (1776). By applying the fundamental precepts of Bentham and Mill's concept of utilitarianism to this morally sensitive medical dilemma, it is

Sprinkled throughout the account of Beauvoir`s experience, it is easy to see the many difficulties that occur within the relationships of doctors, health care staff, family and friends. This repertoire offers a profoundly private account of the, anguish, remorse, and frustration that is often associated with the journey of a loved one to his or her demise. The account is simplistic and to the point; with the frank and truthful visualization and rumination one would experience under similar circumstances. There is a moral dilemma initiated at the beginning of Beauvoir’s hospital experience with her mother, which not only includes deception on the part of her and her sister, but dishonesty

One of the areas that is currently affecting the United States is the ethical issue of organ transplant allocation. Since the first single lung transplant in 1983 and then the first double lung transplant in 1986 there have been thousands of people who have lived because of the surgery. One must examine, evaluate, and apply the four ethical principles to Organ transplant allocation to look at the ethical issues involved. Once must look at the fact that not every patient who would benefit from a transplant will receive one in time

Moreover, the lack of access to health care is morally wrong because it is a fundamental right for humans to maintain self-dignity, fairness in the dispensing of health care, and the inclusion of all in society. Kantian’s ethical theory would argue that it is a moral duty to distribute health care more evenly so that the disadvantaged members of society have a similar chance at access to care. The consequence of those health disparities among the disadvantaged affects everyone’s quality of care and affects communities’ adversely. As a result, the cost shift from annual emergency room visits by the uninsured cost the public over $100,000 billion annually and as a result, distributes approximately an additional $1000 to each family’s insurance premium (Lachman, 2012)). Another example of distribution injustice is the unfair allocation of health care among race and gender. Studies have shown that there is a racial and gender bias in end stage renal failure patients, there is a disproportionate number of white males referred to transplant specialists as opposed to blacks and women. Additionally, their wait on the transplant list is longer, if they ever make it onto the waiting list (Beauchamp, 2013).

Due to the increase in medical technology over the years, medical advancements, such as organ transplants, have grown in commonality. This has increased the number of patient who needs such care. The problem with organ transplants arises from the debate on the ethical way to distribute organs and how to combat the issue of a lack of organ donors. An ethical approach to solving these issues is to develop a system of equal access that relies on maximizing benefits as well as respecting the rights of personal property through better patient-physician conversations when trying to increase organ donors.

The philosophy relayed by the book’s author consistently leads back to the moral question that must be asked in the initial design of the healthcare system. That determination has to do as to whether the government has a duty to act when there are those within their own country do not have equitable access to hospitals and doctors for the treatment of their conditions.14

Does human life have intrinsic value? When considering the value of human life, I think it is very important to understand that the value of life is inherent and cannot be determined by how it is used. Due to this, we cannot use the value of life as a standard to judge upon because the value of human life is equally intrinsic. Therefore, the organ’s value must be highly considered as well as preserving the greatest amount of life. In this paper I will contend that the God Squad’s system is flawed because it fails to consider how the resource could be used most effectively through establishing instrumental value of human life. I will also argue that the essential value should be the prosperity of the organ and patient in order to ensure the organ is not wasted. Therefore, I propose that Rhonda Ryder should be put on the list.

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

This paper will breakdown the difference between clinical and institutional ethics. How this can cause conflict between healthcare and society. Thus, providing an example of how healthcare professionals can be conflicted when trying to provide the best quality care or a compassionate treatment outcome.

Paying people for giving their kidneys would dramatically increase the number of donors and save many more lives as opposed to waiting for people to donate their organs out of the kindness of their heart and expect nothing in return. MacKay appeals to a person’s logical nature when she states that money rules people, in which it very much so does. The money that could be gained from legal organ transactions is immense; MacKay states that it is in the ballpark of $25,000. MacKay’s solution would not only legalize the selling of organs, but also make it regulated by the government, eliminating many people’s fears of the possible consequences of legalization.  She also argues how it would be easier to control the lawful sale of organs as opposed to the unlawful sale.

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

The movie “John Q” by Denzel Washington is about a man whose nine-year is in desperate need for heart transplant, when he discovers that his medical insurance won’t cover and there is no alternative way to pay for the surgery or even to get his name on the organ lists. John Q. Archibald takes the hospital emergency room in hostage to save his child. John Q may be viewed either a bad or a good character, in this argument the question is was John Q was morally right to take the hospital hostage to save his son? If yes than how? People are always trying to do the right thing, such as handing in assignments, getting to work on time, donating. This may make you look like a good person, by there is always a motive behind why you do something, if it’s to just please people and have a good profile, Did John Q care about being a good person or the consequences or was he just trying to save his son? This will be identified through philosopher’s theories of ethics and if in this situation is what the character did morally right and how.

The movie John Q tells the story of a working-class family whose world gets turned upside down with an unexpected tragedy. John Archibald is a loving husband and father whose son is diagnosed with an enlarged heart. The hospital informs John that his son, Mike, needs a heart transplant. This scares the Archibald’s as they have poor health insurance. The hospital administrator informed the Archibald’s that his insurance was changed to HMO and the transplant surgery was then considered an elective procedure; therefore, his insurance did not cover the heart transplant. The hospital then refuses to put Mike’s name on the transplant list or agree to do the surgery. John tries everything he can possibly do to

In this paper, we are going to come up with a brief overview first, then discuss what legal and ethical issues arose through the film particularly on John Q’s action to save his only son’s life. Succeeding examine if healthcare is a right or a privilege and see if people’s social class determine the

This article holds that under certain circumstances, people should be allowed to donate their body parts to those who are in need. Three metaphors are presented to support the thesis. The gift metaphor holds that there is a general consensus that the body is a gift hence it is morally acceptable to donate them to people in need as a gift. The resource metaphor states that the state, authorities and the medical fraternity tend to perceive the body as a resource. The commodity metaphor holds that body organs are acutely scarce a situation that creates an extremely high demand from potential donors who are equally desperate to donate them to those in need. These metaphors suggest that donation of body parts to those in need is not only morally justifiable but also legally acceptable. It is very rational to donate a body part when the donor is well-informed that the transplant means giving life to another and that no suffering result from it. Organs are so valuable to be wasted because individuals neither think about the possibility of living after a transplant of after death.