Part In The Following Case: Identify The Ideals

Part Ain The Following Case Identify The Ideals Or Ideals And Obliga

Part A in the following case, identify the ideals or ideals and obligations that are in conflict. Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (or lesser harm). The issue of health care rationing was an important factor in the debate over the health care bill that President Obama signed into law in 2010. Whether such rationing will occur remains to be seen. If it does, though, it will undoubtedly have the greatest effect on the elderly -- that is, some government administrator or health care panel may decide that certain expensive medical procedures will not be approved for people above a certain age. Similar decisions could also be made about the level of care given in assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

Paper For Above instruction

Health care rationing raises significant ethical dilemmas involving conflicting ideals and obligations, particularly concerning the principles of justice, beneficence, and respect for autonomy. In the context of the 2010 health care reform law, the potential prioritization of resources may lead to decisions that place the well-being of the many over the few, often impacting vulnerable populations such as the elderly. These decisions prompt a thorough examination of whether the actions taken serve the greater good or result in lesser harms, balancing societal benefit against individual rights and needs.

One core ideal in health care ethics is justice, which demands fair and equitable distribution of medical resources. Rationing based on age, for instance, might conflict with the principle of respect for persons, as it could be perceived as discriminatory against the elderly. Conversely, supporting such rationing may be justified under utilitarian principles if it maximizes overall health benefits for the population and prevents the depletion of limited resources. This involves a conflict between individual rights and collective welfare, raising questions about the moral acceptability of prioritizing certain groups over others based on age or health status.

Obligations also come into play. Healthcare providers have an obligation to do no harm and to advocate for their patients’ best interests. When rationing policies threaten to limit potentially life-saving treatments for the elderly, providers might feel morally compelled to challenge or circumvent such policies. Moreover, policymakers have an obligation to create systems that are transparent, equitable, and based on sound ethical principles. Balancing these obligations requires a nuanced assessment of whether the proposed rationing achieves the greatest good while minimizing harm, particularly to vulnerable populations.

Deciding whether rationing achieves the greater good depends on how the policies are implemented and the context. If rationing ensures that limited healthcare resources are allocated to interventions with the highest overall benefit, it may be justified ethically. However, if it unfairly disadvantages the elderly or marginalized groups without adequate safeguards, it could constitute lesser harm or even moral neglect. Ethical decision-making in this arena demands ongoing dialogue, transparency, and careful consideration of the values at stake, ensuring that the actions taken align with societal notions of justice and beneficence.

Paper For Above instruction

In conclusion, the conflict between ideals and obligations in healthcare rationing underscores the complexity of ethical decision-making in public health policy. Striking a balance between maximizing societal benefit and protecting vulnerable groups requires careful analysis of the ethical principles involved. Ultimately, policies must be designed to uphold justice, fairness, and respect for persons while promoting overall health and well-being, recognizing that achieving the greater good must be rooted in morally sound and transparent processes.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Daniels, N. (2001). Justice, Health, and Healthcare. Cambridge University Press.
• Gillon, R. (2003). Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ, 309(6948), 184–188.
• Persad, G., et al. (2009). Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(12), 1195–1200.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2010). Affordable Care Act and Ethics. https://www.hhs.gov
• Vinci, C., et al. (2019). Ethical implications of healthcare rationing. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(4), 245–249.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decision Making (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Persad, G., et al. (2009). Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(12), 1195–1200.
• Childress, J. F. (2007). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(1), 13–20.