Kant 's Categorical Imperative For The Practice Of Modern Medicine

Legalization would bring honesty, clarity and transparency to an existing practice. Meier et.al (1998) in his national survey of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US; found that even when PAS is not legalized, there have been requests to hasten death in some situations.

The concept of autonomy in the medical practice brings many different views. Autonomy is the ability individuals have to be self-governing. In these different views there exist two schools of thought, one is the belief that people are born with the ability to do what they want their body and no organization can tell them what to do with their body, like the government. On the other hand, some people believe that it is more complicated and conditional on mental competency so that person can make rational decisions. However, the majority of people seem to advocate for autonomy. A particular largely uncontroversial discussion arises with the case of Dax Cowart, who had his right to autonomy taken from him in a tragic accident and is

Autonomy includes three primary conditions: (1) liberty (independence from controlling influences), (2) agency (capacity for intentional action), and (3) understanding (through informed consent) (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 100). According to Beauchamp & Childress (2009) to respect autonomous agents, one must acknowledge their right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on their personal values and beliefs (p. 103). Respect for autonomy implies thaturges caregivers to respect theassist a patient in achieving? Heed? the autonomous choices of their patients. From there, patients can act intentionally and with full understanding when evaluating medical treatment modalities. Autonomy also includes a set of rules, one of which requires that providers honor patient decision-making rights by providing the truth, also known as veracity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 103). In this case, several facets of the principle of respecting autonomy, specifically veracity, informed

According to Kant, imperatives are principles determining what individuals should do. These imperatives may be divided as those which are categorical, and those which are hypothetical; the former expresses imperatives that are those

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.

To distinguish between perfect an imperfect duties. Try to universalize the maxim that is about to be acted. Would you want this maxim to be acted upon your person? By universalizing, you can test whether, your needs are being privileged over the needs of others.

To support my stand, I will use the Principlism approach articulated by Beauchamp and Childress (B&C) in their textbook principles of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). B & C thoroughly develop and advocate for four principles that lie at the core of moral reasoning in health care: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. The reason behind selecting this approach is because these Principles derived from the “common morality” and thus, they are universally binding in all healthcare settings everywhere. The principles are binding regardless of the ethical theory one adhere to or believe in, because everybody recognizes the importance and the strength of the common morality. Consequently, the Principlism approach provides a means for proceeding with ethical analysis even when persons disagree in theoretical matters.

Butts and Butts (2015, p 188) continue that Kantian deontology suggests that each rational being is ethically bound to act with a sense of duty for which the consequences are irrelevant, whereby a provider may consider that certain actions would ultimately save their patient's life and better serve their health, which is the general aim of health care services. Ethics is an active process distinguishing matters of right and wrong and how these matters relate to the well-being or and relationship amongst persons.

The precedence of personal autonomy in healthcare is a distinctive characteristic in Western medicine that allows people to be free from controlling interference by external factors. Modern bioethicists believe that patient autonomy should not be exhausted, but rather prioritized over all other bioethical principles, which are beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (2008, Tsai). Though patient autonomy is a cornerstone in Western medicine and bioethics, the extent to which patient autonomy should be exercised remains undefined. Currently, patient’s desires are deemed “autonomous” when assessed under a certain procedural criteria; however, different views on how these criterias can be formulated leads to ambiguous moral conclusions on patient

In any medical setting, it is essential to respect the patients’ autonomy. Any competent patient has the right to make decisions regarding his or her health. However, the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence also need to be considered. Respecting the patients’ autonomy does not entail a one-size-fits-all approach to truth-telling. Unfettered truthfulness or “truth-dumping” may not be in the patient’s best interest. Moreover, some cultures do not subscribe to the individualistic principle of patient autonomy and family members are significantly involved in the patient’s decision-making.

All procedures and treatments should be intended to help the patient reach their individual goals; to address this need the we will apply the ethical construct of beneficence. “To ensure beneficence, medical practitioners must develop and maintain a high level of skill and knowledge, make sure that they are trained in the most current and best medical practices, and must consider their patients’

Within healthcare, practitioners often have to make difficult decisions regarding the care of their patients. This could be to do with giving or withdrawing treatment, or as simple as sharing risk information (Glover, 1997). Ultimately, the practitioner must be able to rationalise any decision they have made (Morrison, 2009). With this in mind, the following assignment will draw upon an ethical dilemma and explore how theoretical perspectives can be utilised within the decision making process. Therefore it will also be pertinent to draw upon the law, and how this influences actions within health care. To facilitate this discussion, I will identify a scenario from practice that

Kant would definitely not endorse a paternalistic view. Paternalism is deciding for a person for their own good. Kant argues that a lie is “merely an intentionally false declaration towards another man... for it always injures another; if not individual, yet mankind generally (Vaughn 148). In the practice of medicine, there are instances where the truth would be better kept from the patients. However, Kant would not believe in doing this because he believes that we do not have the duty to lie even if it is to prevent harm to others. Patients are entitled to their autonomy and lying to a patient disrespects such ability to make decisions without the input of another person.

This edition consists of nine chapters divided into three parts, as well as an appendix of ten biomedical ethics cases. In Part I, chapter 1, entitled "Moral Norms," introduces the decision-making framework with attention to specifying and balancing principles and rules for moral deliberation and decision-making. Chapter 2, entitled "Moral Character," elaborates on moral virtues and ideals as an often-neglected area in biomedical ethics. In Part II, chapters 3 through 6 present the four basic groups of principles, and chapter 7, "Professional-Patient Relationships," examines the moral rules of veracity,

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.