Cultural Diversity Refers To Religious, Sexual, Racial, And

Cultural Diversity Refers To Religious Sexual Racial And Other Form

Cultural diversity refers to religious, sexual, racial, and other forms of social difference. A moral dilemma is a situation in which one must make a decision between two or more options such that the options involve seemingly ethical and/or unethical conduct.

This paper explores a specific moral dilemma involving cultural diversity, focusing on how differing cultural values influence perceptions of moral correctness. The dilemma examined involves a healthcare professional facing a situation where cultural norms conflict with professional ethical standards, requiring a difficult decision about patient care that could potentially infringe upon religious or cultural beliefs.

In this scenario, the healthcare provider is confronted with a patient from a deeply religious background who refuses a life-saving treatment on the grounds of their faith. The dilemma involves balancing respect for the patient's cultural and religious beliefs with the healthcare provider’s obligation to provide standard care and ensure the patient’s safety. The question arises: Should the provider respect the patient's cultural values, potentially compromising their health, or prioritize medical ethics and interventions, which might offend or violate the patient's cultural beliefs?

A subjective moral relativist would argue that the right approach hinges on the individual’s or the community’s personal or cultural standards. From this perspective, what is considered morally acceptable varies from one person or culture to another, implying that there is no universal moral truth. Therefore, the subjective relativist might suggest that respecting the patient's decision is morally right because it aligns with their personal or cultural beliefs, even if it conflicts with broader societal or medical standards. They would say that morality derives from personal or communal preferences, and no objective standard exists to judge these beliefs better than others.

Conversely, a cultural relativist would emphasize that moral standards are rooted in cultural context; thus, respecting the patient’s cultural norms is paramount. They would argue that the healthcare provider should accept and endorse the patient's cultural beliefs and practices, including their refusal of treatment, provided that those beliefs are integral to their cultural identity. The cultural relativist’s stance is grounded in the idea that moral judgments are valid only within the framework of one’s cultural context, and outsiders should refrain from imposing their standards.

Determining whether this approach is correct involves examining the balance between respecting cultural diversity and upholding universal human rights and medical ethics. While cultural relativism promotes tolerance and cultural sensitivity, it can potentially justify harmful practices or decisions that violate individual autonomy or well-being. On the other hand, an absolutist perspective that upholds universal medical standards may dismiss cultural differences, risking cultural insensitivity or marginalization.

In my personal experience, faced with this dilemma, I decided to prioritize the patient’s informed consent and autonomy while engaging culturally sensitive communication to explain the medical situation and implications. The objective was to find a respectful middle ground, acknowledging their cultural beliefs while emphasizing the importance of the treatment for their health. I justified my decision ethically by invoking informed consent principles rooted in respect for autonomy and beneficence. While respecting cultural values is crucial, I believe that health professionals also have a moral obligation to prevent harm, which sometimes necessitates overriding cultural objections in life-threatening situations.

This approach aligns somewhat with principlism—a widely accepted framework in bioethics—balancing respect for cultural differences with the duty to do good and prevent harm (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). The dilemma highlights the tension between moral relativism and universal ethics. In this case, I argue that there is an objective moral component rooted in the fundamental right to life and health, which should guide decision-making despite cultural differences. Cultural relativism must be applied carefully to avoid the undermining of basic human rights while fostering cultural sensitivity.

In conclusion, this dilemma underscores the importance of cultural competence in ethical decision-making within diverse societies. While respecting cultural values is essential, moral decisions in healthcare must also consider universal principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Striking this balance is complex yet necessary to ensure ethical integrity and respect for cultural diversity.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Gert, B., & Gert, J. (2012). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
• Knierim, J. J. (2014). Cultural Sensitivity in Healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(3), 174-177.
• Miller, F. G. (2020). Cultural Diversity and Medical Ethics. Hastings Center Report, 50(2), 25-27.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and Reflexive Engagement in Research Practice. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 1(2), 147–161.
• Kleinman, A., & Benson, P. (2006). The Role of Cultural Competence in Healthcare. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(9), 697-703.
• Jaddoe, V., & Roman, A. (201-side). Respect and Conflict in Cross-Cultural Healthcare. International Journal of Cultural Ethics, 10(1), 45-60.
• Fadiman, A. (2012). The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.