Medical interventions always possess two possible outcomes in every situation or case. The principle of double effect is the actual ethics that governs the conditions of alternatives. The main concept that it utilizes is the thought that persons are faced with decision that cannot be avoided and, in the circumstances, the decision will cause both desirable and undesirable effects. Considering the value ethics involved in every intervention implemented, the risk factors should always be considered.
Essentially speaking, the principle of double effect involves the critical assessment of the situation considering the fact that the choices being made greatly impact a life of an individual. In an ethical controversy of maternal-fetal conditions wherein the mother is suffering from a case of complications that lead to the severe necessity of evacuating the conception product. The case possesses no other alternatives, and has greatly compromised both life conditions of the mother and the fetus. Moreover, if medical intervention is not implemented as soon as possible both lives shall be endangered severely.
In some part of logical implication, some might categorize such action as direct attempt of killing; essentially since, either of the mother’s life or the fetal life needs to be sacrificed in order to save one. In such case of saving life through resuscitation, if the significant relatives or others imposed the negation of such life saving treatment for the patient provided with the considerations of higher good than evil, it is not considered anymore as actions of euthanasia nor direct killing.
The medical provider is not anymore liable if incase the patient suffered from any untoward conditions that requires resuscitation, however in the end resulted to death, as it is already a directed will of the patient and the support groups. The principle of total effect protects no singular parts or single levels of life. In fact, it does even consider the whole or total person as a whole. The whole or total person is what is sacred and has rights. To promote parts or lower levels independently of the person’s totality would violate just the quality of life considerations.
The medical provider should consider the treatment interventions not only for the benefit of a single part, but rather every aspect of the whole body, such as the effect of the therapy or medical intervention on other parts of the body. Psychotherapy involves the utmost obligation to facilitate the psychological health and well-being of the society. As far as medico-ethics is concerned, psychiatrists possess such responsibility of conjuring psychological health to the people.
Such principle involves the concept of the divine as well as the societal requirement of psychological health linked together with the guidelines of psychotherapeutical interventions. Such principle considers man as a psychic unit and total aspect of a person as a whole. Considering the fact that man functions as a whole, psychiatric therapy should revolve in every aspect of a person not only on particularities of disease, disorder, or signs and symptoms but rather as a whole unified being.
However, still in response to this perspective, the concept of the individual should still deal in the specifics and objective details of an individual. The guide protocols of this principle are the fact that man is a unified unit of the community that requires social interactions, and morality considerations over the psychological interventions. Rights to Health Care The general principle of health care greatly considers that every individual possesses the right to have unconditional, indiscriminate, and with no considerations on an individual’s society.
The rights of health care, by law, divine protocols and natural necessities, should be ethically available for every individual. As for the ever conjuring issues in terms of impairment of the delivery of health care, it is both the responsibility of the patient and the health care provider to facilitate maximum health care potential. The health seeking behavior is expected for the patients requiring health care needs as their responsibility, while health care information dissemination, motivation and encouragement are the ethical duties of the health care providers.
With the advent of managerial, profit-oriented and progressive modernization, the principle of the health care basic right is arguably being violated in some sense. As the fact states, at least 35 million Americans cannot afford proper health care delivery system for them due to either expensive medical insurance requirements or poverty. As for the both interacting requirement, most of the public, especially those living in or below poverty line, undeniably obtains their medical care from governmental provisions, which are not always sufficient to consider every individual’s health care needs.
In fact, Medicaid insurance, which is a public insurance firm that caters mostly for the financially incapacitated individuals, is extensively and progressively increasing. However, the worst case of such Medicaid provision is that sickness status possesses a marginal requirement to consider a person a candidate for health care treatment. In such case, the health care status of these individuals worsens before they can even attain their due medical interventions.
Another controversy is the rising patients of Medicare insurance, which is a public governmental firm that caters to elderly health care welfare. Due to the increasing number of those that cannot afford geriatric care necessities, the last option for these elders is to obtain the care that the government hospitals provide. However, there are cases wherein these elderly incapacitated individuals are being eagerly discharged by the hospital. Adding on to the situation is the increasing profit-oriented hospital firms, which perceives delivery of care as business-money-earning sources.
Such condition is beginning to coincide and dominate the health care market, which if not regulated, may even caused further decline of health care obtainment by the public due to financial incongruencies. Considering that the incidence of poverty in the public is increasing, incapabilities of health care insurance to support the appropriate and adequate requirements of their beneficiaries, and the increasing incidence of profit oriented hospitals, greatly contributes to the health care scarcity and health care status of the society.
Essentially speaking, such condition possesses the possibility of aggravating the morbidity and mortality ratings in the society. Such case is considered indeed as violations of the ethical principle of right of health care. On the contrary, such protocols are necessary in order to keep the hospital and medical insurance organizations surviving. Although, the evident consequence of such scenario is the increasing individuals suffering from health care impairments. As far as the ethical principle, rights of health care, is concerned, such occurring scenario violates the fundamental ethics of health care.
Suffering Even with subjective evidences or manifestations, the concept of suffering seems central for the most fundamental concerns of bioethics. Suffering is in part constituted by the experience of a profound evil, as the Old Testament denotes, or threat to our sense of self and identity that we are unable to control. IT is the experience of the inexplicably arbitrary and typically destructive. Suffering is not of course an end of religious experience but a problem demanding interpretation.
Religions traditions have historically tried to give meaning to suffering by placing the experience in a context of broader questions about ultimate purpose in life, and even human destiny beyond life. Suffering is knowledge of evil but is not evil in itself. Frequently its existence serves as a helpful spiritual or physical warning that something is amiss. Physical pain is often first sign of a serious illness; it informs us that something has gone wrong and that we need medical assistance. Of course, sometimes we become aware of evil but are unable to do anything about the situation.
The evil is not in our knowledge of a certain state of affairs but in the state of affairs themselves. While we experience our knowledge of these evils as suffering, the knowledge itself remains a basic good. As salvation denotes liberation from evil, Christ liberates man from sin by means of His cross, that is, by means of suffering. The work of salvation is a labor of suffering. Every person is called to participate personally in that suffering through which our redemption has been accomplished and through which all suffering was redeemed.
Suffering, symbolizes by the Cross, is the one universal door through which all must pass to enter the kingdom of God. While on the human level suffering is an “emptying,” on the divine level it is a glorifying or a “filling up” and an invitation to manifest the moral greatness of man. The glory of suffering cannot be seen in the martyrs, but also in those who, while not believing in Christ, suffer and give their lives for the truth. As for a Christian perspective, suffering is an opportunity for everyone to experience the power of God and share in the work of redemption.
In the midst of each individual’s suffering, Christ is present to share that person’s suffering-just as He invites each of us to share His sufferings. This inter-participation of suffering unites our sufferings and Christ’s sufferings, as well as uniting us with Christ personally. In terms of the medical ethics application, suffering is for both patient and the health care provider to share; however, one must not join each one and extend the same negative feelings but rather, facilitate as the motivator and alleviator of sufferings.
The greatest part of relieving the patient from the occurring suffering is on the part of the health care provider, as they are the ones who are responsible for the alleviation of such condition. The suffering of undergoing the case of alleviation and the suffering of alleviating the patient itself are the two considered faces of suffering, which has to be considered in every ethical case action. In is indeed necessary to think that the difficulties imposed by the situation is carried by both interacting parties and not one alone.