Rules For Ethical Decision example essay topic

The impact of ethics on decision making can be as different as the people who make them. I have chosen to discuss a disci sion by the Supreme Court involving patients that are dying with the aids virus. This case stems from the foundation of "Women Alive". I will explain the rules for ethical decision making and the implications of the decisions made.

What are the ground rules? The ground rules or determining factors of ethics and decision making are personal choices that we make everyday. Maurice Bernstein, MD, explains one method that follows to making an ethical decision. web 1) What is the question? Define clearly the question or issue-We should make sure we understand exactly what is asked or what is the conflict. 2) What are the facts related to the question? - This is the most important element and often incompletely obtained.

3) What ethical or moral principles are involved? Consider: Beneficence-the commitment to do good and promote well being Nonmaleficience-the commitment to avoid or minimize harm Autonomy-the commitment to respect the capacity and right of individuals to choose their own values and goals and to decide for themselves what happens to their body and their lives Justice-the commitment to fairness, to giving each individual his due and to equitably allocate collective resources Veracity-the commitment to truth telling Fidelity-the commitment to promise keeping Community- the commitment of taking into account the needs, interests, contribution and role of the community and acknowledging the way in which individuals are embedded to various degrees in complicated relationships and broader connections which might not be readily apparent 4) What are the options? What are the answers or actions to take in order to resolve the question? 5) In order to resolve the ethical or moral question and selecting an option of action we must decide which principle, on balance, will result in the more good compared with competing principles.

But in making this decision one must also consider the following concerns: Consequences-the likely impact of each option on all parties involved Rights-establishing whether basic rights are at stake and considering the correlative obligations Duties-essential obligations we have for one another Respect for Persons-value certain actions which lead to human flourishing and to value people who have the potential for such actions Virtues-which include integrity, compassion, honesty and fidelity Cost-Effectiveness and Justice-consideration of fairness to be taken into account in weighing the distribution and balance of the benefits and burdens of each option. The case concerning the aids patients was brought in the state of Oregon. It is the only state that allows regulated assisted dying. The Women Alive foundation in conjunction with the Death with Dignity affiliate came together and offered alternatives to suffering and pain management. They argued that the system was geared to preserving life and healing, therefore leaving the terminal ill to extended suffering not only from the life ending disease, but the actions taken from doctors. The doctors reasoning for with holding additional medications are fear of addiction and that they must stay within the standard dose for the medication.

The case Gluck berg vs. Washington was a case that the courts heard and their decision was ethically defensible. They did not recognize the right to take ones own life. They did, however, make the decision to allow a person to decide the adequate amount of pain medication to ease their suffering. Even if this medication brought death quicker than it would have occurred otherwise. They said", We believe that pressing ahead to make this right a reality will relieve much of end of life suffering. It will also heighten public awareness of the many end of life options available, some of which hasten death as the unavoidable consequence of relieving suffering.

Since death frequently occurs as a result of a treatment decision, we believe that the patient himself or herself is the safest and most ethically defensible decision maker concerning whether suffering is intolerable and whether knowingly hastening death is acceptable". web The ethical implications are whether personal choice over life and death should supersede ones belief to preserve life and prolong it in any way possible. How much does the commitment to do good interfere with the commitment to fairness and letting one decide his or her own fate. I think the ethical inferences of the decision are whether or not to respect the capacity and right of individuals to choose their own values and goals and to decide for themselves what happens to their body and their lives. I think the court remained vigilant in not recognizing the right to take life and reserved the morality of preserving life when possible. It also recognized the suffering that the doctors actions brought about and the right of the individual by allowing the person suffering to be the one that determines the amount of pain medicine it takes to relieve their pain. How might the decision change the ground rules I feel this decision by the Supreme Court will open the door down the road for further rights afforded to the patient's right to die.

While the court did not justify the ending of a life it did supply the means through a compassionate avenue. It recognized that the people involved were not just concerned with the ending of a life, but the end of painful suffering. It realized that the patients and the families were going through unnecessary suffering. It ruled against the doctors for a lack of ethical compassion. The doctors were not taking in consideration the moral and ethical ramifications of their actions. I feel this decision will allow more people in these situations wider options.

The next step would be assisted suicide by medication. It is not a far leap from the decision posted by the Supreme Court. If presented correctly, I feel the road has been opened and every case will ease a little closer in this direction. Is it morally wrong or ethically defensible to allow the direction of assisted suicide? I believe that history has shown us that as times move on and people experience different circumstances that the impact of ethics on decision making can be as different as the people who make them.

This decision will change the way we live and die.