Mr. Wright 's The Unnecessary Surgery

This adverse event should be escalated properly so that the administration and other doctors are aware of the outcome. This death could have been prevented, and others should be able to learn from this. We don’t know the full story from this short problem described in the book, but many questions arise from the situation. Was she completely aware of the risks? Did she know she was not a good candidate for the surgery?

“It is to these intangible goods that we in the medical profession must bow our heads, for these are goods that often escape our notice, focused as we are on things measurable, things we can get our hands on.” I believe this quote is a great example of why the medical model is flawed. Medical professionals and scientist focus on the numbers, the predictions, and the genetic probabilities, that they attempt to quantize quality of life, and predict it, based on prior examples of the people of the past that have suffered, because medical professionals failed to give them the opportunity to achieve what they view as a quality life. Medical professionals must realize that they cannot quantify quality

In his article “Whose Body Is It, Anyway?”—appearing in the New Yorker in October 1994—Dr. Atul Gawande highlights the complexities of the doctor-patient relationship vis-à-vis patient autonomy and decision-making. Dr. Gawande explains that a respect for patient autonomy (i.e., allowing patients to choose between courses of treatment, therefore directly influencing their health outcome) is the “new normal” for medical practitioners. However, Gawande also contends that there are times when patients are better served by a voluntary relinquishment of that autonomy.

First, the relationship between a doctor and patient is a valuable asset in today’s medical environment. In this case, Merry didn’t understand that her diagnosis was worsening after refusing treatment, her autonomy was to have control of her own life decisions. As a result, Merry’s family chose to deny

Throughout our lives, we are plagued by the notion of ‘ethics’ or morals - the basis of our everyday behavior. The medical field is no exception, with doctors constantly reminded of the ethical duties they must carry out for each of their patients. An example of unethical doctors is demonstrated in Daniel Keyes’s short story, Flowers for Algernon. The story features Charlie Gordon, a man with an intellectual disability who strives to become smarter. He is a candidate for a new surgical procedure that is used to triple one’s intelligence which was directed by Dr. Strauss and Dr. Nemur. Although the procedure holds promise for helping a vast amount of people, Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss acted unethically by selecting Charlie to undergo the operation because they did not finish testing the procedure and because Charlie was unable to make a proper decision.

Charlies doctors acted unethically when they asked if Charlie wanted to do the operation. The doctors didn’t ask Charlie these questions. "Has the patient been informed of benefits and risks, understood this information, and given consent? Is the patient mentally capable and legally competent, and is there evidence of incapacity? If mentally capable, what preferences about treatment is the patient stating? If incapacitated, has the patient expressed prior preferences? Who is the appropriate surrogate to make decisions for the incapacitated patient? Is the patient unwilling or unable to cooperate with medical treatment? If so, why?"(Siegler). The doctors just told Charlie that the operation will make him smarter. This was very unethical by the doctors who kind of took advantage of Charlie just for research.

In the modern world, patients expect their doctors to aid them and to support them. In the short story, “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes, Dr. Strauss and Dr. Nemur conducted an intelligence enhancement experiment on a man named, Charlie Gordon and changed his life. With an IQ of sixty-eight, the scientists altered him and tripled his IQ. However, this operation has not been ethical because the procedure was abstruse to Charlie, the doctors were rushing, and Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss were acting selfishly.

One of the reasons the doctors were not ethical is they didn't tell him all of the risks and he didn't really understand what was going to happen after the operation. ''Miss Kinnian says maybe they can make me smart.''(Flowers for Algernon progress report 1 March 5 1965) ''Has the patient been informed of benefits and risks, understood

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

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

However, I am not convinced that this example on its own proves hedonism false. Perhaps the idea very idea of connecting to a machine and losing contact to reality is in itself painful to us, as it presents us with an existential crisis, and so we choose not to connect to avoid the painful thoughts associated with having one’s mind controlled by a machine. Perhaps, there is a third category of pleasures that could be called “meta-pleasures” that are the pleasures that come from knowing that we are in touch with reality and that what we are doing is having a real effect. Much like personal safety, meta-pleasure is only tangible when it is threatened. We are not able to be aware of or “feel” our safety, we become aware of it only when it is threatened by something else, as is the case with meta-pleasure. We only become aware of meta-pleasure when something like an experience machine threatens our notion of the reality we are experiencing and suggests that our minds could be completely controlled by a machine. If meta-pleasure is something that is real, then the experience machine thought experiment would only further prove hedonism because it shows that we will desire things which are pleasurable and avoid those that are painful.

The hedonist would argue that pleasure is the only intrinsic good in life, that joy and suffering are the only distinguishing marks of things beneficial or harmful to the human being. To the hedonist, life is like the common balance scale with suffering on one side and pleasure on the other. With pleasure being inversely related to suffering, in order to maximize the good of life, the hedonist strives to minimize suffering, thereby maximizing net pleasure (pleasure minus suffering).

3. Yes, it would be morally justified for a surgeon to have provided the hernia surgery because who knows Roberta W. can survive the surgery. If there is no other option to helping Roberta W. hernia the surgeon should try their best and do the surgery. This option is way better than for Roberta W. to just sit there and refusing hydration at least the surgeon tried to help her. If we look at the teleological theory it says “denotes even if the act was wrong but the outcome turned out good then it is considered good.” So I think if surgeon don’t have any more option to help Roberta W.’s hernia they should just do the surgery because in the outcome who knows it can come out good. In case that this surgeon doesn’t do the surgery, there is millions of surgeon who would gladly do the surgery for Roberta W., it is 50/50 chance that she could die or

The desire satisfaction theory accommodates the thought which hedonism does not accommodate. According to the desire satisfaction theory, our lives go better when the world actually is a certain way, and doesn’t merely appear to be a certain way. An individual experiences pleasure when the desires are satisfied but it is not a guarantee that the desires cause pleasure.

Here we will not only explain BIID and identify its influence on those individuals it impacts, we will also consider the social and ethical implications as they can be interpreted by surgeons, medical facilities, insurance companies, and government health exchanges. And finally, we will examine some post-operation hypotheticals pertaining to how patients live