I NEED PART 2 ONLY!!!!
Review the scenario below. Throughout the course, you will be referring to this scenario, coming up with an appropriate solution, and reflecting on your thinking process.
Your 82-year-old patient is in kidney failure and requires hemodialysis but this sort of medical intervention goes against her religious beliefs. Without this treatment she will certainly die. With the treatment she can expect to live a relatively normal life for years to come. She has no other diseases or conditions.
In the first part of this project you defined the problem outlined in the scenario. Now you will consider possible solutions based on different ethical perspectives.
1.What would someone do from the perspective of Aristotle’s virtue based ethics? Explain why.
2.What would someone do from the Buddhist ethical perspective? Explain why.
3.Consider the concept of pluralism. How would you balance your own belief in what was good for the patient with his or her own wishes?
4.Reflect on your responses from Part 1 of this project and to the earlier questions. What would you do in this situation? Of all of the theories covered in the course which one most closely matches your own ethical perspective on this issue? Explain your stance.
The body of your paper should be 3-4 pages in APA format.
This project is only Part 2. Previous in Part 1 I wrote this:
This scenario involves refusal of medical treatment based on religious beliefs of the patient. This is a current trend in the field of medicine due to the emergence of different denominations over the course of time.
“Your 82-year-old patient is in kidney failure and requires hemodialysis, but this sort of medical intervention goes against her religious beliefs. Without this treatment, she will indeed die. With the treatment, she can expect to live a relatively healthy life for years to come. She has no other diseases or conditions.”
Various religious groups have different norms and beliefs concerning certain medical interventions. The most controversial being the issue of blood transfusion and amputation. There has been a lot of debate on these matters to bring a balance between the welfare of the patient and what is morally right (Berglund, 2004). In this case, the patient’s religion does not allow hemodialysis, which is a significant medical intervention in patients with the end-stage renal disease. The problem in this scenario is the hindrance of medical intervention by the religious norms and beliefs perceived by the patient, which affect the three parties. That is the healthcare provider, the patient and the specific religion involved.
Kant’s perspective on any decision taken revolves around the motive of the action, is it or self-interest or good will, which he considers morally upright. Kant’s continues to argue that any external motivation to perform any task is not morally acceptable, which in this case, the external force is the religion of the patient. According to Kante, a law must be universally accepted and routinely done to consider it morally upright. The freedom of this patient to refuse hemodialysis is against the moral perspective since it cannot be applied to all patients who have the end-stage renal disease but only to those from that religious group. Someone following Kant’s moral perspective would consider the decision by the patient as being vague since one aspect of morality as depicted by this scholar is recognizing your wellbeing and responsibility to make decisions which do not serve the interests of the religious group but serve to safeguard your life which is paramount (Miller, 1987).
In my case, patients should not have the right to refuse reasonable medical treatment because of the detrimental consequences that usually follow. Health workers have the mandate to safeguard the health status of a given population. In case a decision by the patient is likely to result in death or any other comorbidity, they are obliged to report the incident to the relevant authorities for the benefits of the patient. They can also continue with life-saving procedures irrespective of the decision in rare cases (Paley, 2002). Interfering with medical intervention results in continued suffering and prolonged hospitalization. It also results in extra expenses due to this extended hospital stay. Patients should not be allowed to make these decisions since it demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the clinical situation (Miller, 1987).
As depicted in this scenario, it is not a simple task trying to bring the three parties into a common consensus. However, health professionals should also understand the beliefs around the refusal and try to look for alternative ways to manage the patient. Professionals should also seek a second opinion from a colleague but a different institution. The patient, on the other hand, should also understand the clinical situation in question in a conscious mind. A religious leader from the patient’s side should also be involved in the conversation. Bringing all these parties together is the best way to influence in the proper management of the patient (Gillon, et al. 1994).