In This Section You Have Studied Several Ethical Arguments

In This Section You Have Studied Several Ethical Arguments The Purpose

In this section you have studied several ethical arguments the purpose of which is to both say what is right or good and to justify the reward and punishment for human actions. Below is a case history that I would like for you to consider: Jane is a 17 year old woman who, about a year ago, presented to the ER of a major New York hospital with symptoms consistent with a neurological problem. She was referred to the neurology department and upon testing was shown to have a condition called neurofibromatosis. Because this is a genetic condition for which there is no cure, all that could be done was to operate to remove the benign tumor from her auditory pathways. This meant, however, that she lost all hearing.

The operation was successful and she was discharged for outpatient follow-up but within about one year, she was discovered to have a new tumor growth along her visual pathway. The surgeon recommended a second operation to remove the tumor (without surgical intervention, the tumor will grow to the point where brain tissue is destroyed), but Jane was reluctant to have this done. She argued that since the disease is progressive and terminal in any event, she would like to live for the rest of her life with vision. Because the doctor believed that while she might experience some reduction in quality of life, she should have the operation because it would prolong her life by several years, maybe even a decade.

Take a position about what should be done and present an argument using one or more of the ethical arguments we covered so far. Offer a defense of your position, use reasons, and give a personal observation as to why you think your action will be productive of the best outcome. The minimum word count for these essays is 800. When you submit them, please be sure to use the eCampus HTML link associated with each paper assignment. Do not email them to me. The deadline for submission is the last day of the regularly scheduled class. The purpose of these papers is to focus on one argument or theory.

The goal is not to do research (looking up information in the library) but to focus your thoughts on one argument or position and explore it in depth. Your grade will be primarily based on the clarity of your writing, command of the material, and the depth of your explanations. Your stance on the issue is not relevant; instead, focus on developing a well-reasoned and ethically grounded position. Additionally, briefly explain if this assignment has affected your view of the subject—whether it has strengthened or altered your initial perspective, and how. You will also be graded on your ability to formulate an informed personal response to this philosophical problem, developing and defending your position clearly and thoughtfully.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma presented in Jane’s case centers on the conflict between respecting patient autonomy and the physician’s obligation to promote health and prolong life. To navigate this issue, I will employ the ethical theory of deontology, particularly Kantian ethics, which emphasizes respecting individuals as autonomous moral agents capable of making their own decisions. My position is that Jane’s choice to refuse the second surgery should be honored because respecting patient autonomy is a fundamental ethical obligation that outweighs the paternalistic impulse to prolong life at all costs.

In Kantian ethics, morality is founded on the principle of respecting persons as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. This implies that healthcare providers must respect patients’ autonomy, including their values, choices, and preferences, even if these decisions might result in a less favorable health outcome. Jane has expressed her desire to live with her remaining vision, which she values over the potential prolongation of her life with additional suffering or diminished quality of life. Forcing her to undergo surgery against her will would violate her autonomy and fail to treat her as an end in herself, which is a fundamental Kantian imperative (Kant, 1785/1993).

Furthermore, respecting Jane’s decision aligns with the principle of informed consent, a cornerstone of medical ethics. Informed consent entails recognizing and honoring a competent patient's right to make decisions about their own body and health. Jane's understanding of her condition, the risks and benefits of surgery, and her valuation of her current quality of life demonstrate her capacity for autonomous decision-making. Forcing an undesired operation could cause psychological harm and diminish her sense of agency, which are contrary to ethical medical practice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

However, some might argue that the physician’s duty to preserve life should take precedence, especially when death is imminent without intervention. From a consequentialist perspective, one might contend that prolonging life is inherently valuable and that the potential for additional years justifies surgery. Nevertheless, this viewpoint risks neglecting the importance of individual autonomy and the qualitative aspects of life that patients themselves prioritize. A purely utilitarian calculus might support the operation, but it neglects the moral significance of respecting individual values and choices (Singer, 2011).

Considering the personal implications, I believe that honoring Jane’s decision would be most productive because it affirms her dignity as an autonomous individual and respects her right to determine her life’s course. A life with compromised vision, chosen freely, can still be meaningful and fulfilling, especially when consistent with her personal values. Advocating for her autonomy encourages healthcare professionals to prioritize patient-centered care, fostering trust and shared decision-making, which are crucial for ethical practice (Epstein & Street, 2011).

In conclusion, my ethical stance is that Jane’s decision to refuse the second operation should be respected. Employing Kantian ethics underscores the importance of respecting her autonomy and treating her with dignity. While prolonging life is a valuable goal, it should never override an individual's right to make decisions about their own body and quality of life. This approach not only aligns with core ethical principles but also promotes a compassionate, respectful model of healthcare that recognizes the moral complexity of such decisions.

References

• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Epstein, R. M., & Street, R. L. (2011). The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care. Annals of Family Medicine, 9(2), 100-103.
• Kopelman, L. M. (2003). Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision-Making. Cambridge University Press.
• Mercer, S. W., & Reynolds, W. J. (2002). The Situation of the Doctor–Patient Relationship and its Impact on the Quality of Care. The British Journal of General Practice, 52(Suppl), S22–S26.
• Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press.
• Reiss, M. (2014). Respecting the Autonomy of Patients with Cognitive Impairments. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(6), 367-370.
• Scully, J. L. (2009). Is Respect for Autonomy Compatible with Paternalism? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(3), 183-187.
• Childress, J. F. (2001). The Place of Justice in Medical Ethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26(3), 385-400.