SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO
description
Transcript of SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO
SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO EqualityDoctor or Arbiter?
Group Members
The doctor must play an inappropriate/unethical role of judging others.
FOR AGAINST
Strengths:- Undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Patients may lose trust & withhold information. Utilitarianism: can the doctor really do the best for the greater good if the doctor-patient relationship is undermined?
Each person is considered of equal worth and equal access to health care should be given, regardless of variable need.
FOR AGAINST
Strengths:- There are many other non-controllable factors that may contribute to the disease, making it impossible to allocate the organ fairly.-The argument of utilitarianism in undermined as a characteristic of this principle is impartiality: each person’s welfare counts equal.Weaknesses: - argued that people who participate in risky health behavior are contributing to their illness therefore could be considered as unequal according to the principles of justice - To whom should we do good? Giving an organ to a patient with an unhealthy life-style means someone else will miss out.
Although there are strong arguments on both sides of this debate, we believe the arguments against the prioritisation of organ transplants are more strongly supported, by a wider range of ethical principles. Deontology supports that it is not the doctor’s role to choose who lives and dies, but to treat each individual patient equally. Autonomy validates one’s choice to live and enjoy life’s risks, as well as a patient’s right to request treatment. To deny a patient treatment due to their lifestyle choices is not in the patient’s best interests and causes them harm, thus opposing the principals of beneficence and non-maleficence. We believe a system for prioritisation for organ transplants should based on other factors, such as the likelihood of benefit for the patient and the urgency of treatment.
Research, poster & speech: Juliette Roex, Emma Lane, Kate Seagrim, Ned Young, Jaya Lindsay
organ transplants lifestyle
factors
Demand
Supply
?Who should receive the organ?
For Against
Non-Maleficenc
e
Respect for Autonomy
Deontology
Utilitarianism
There is a personal right to engage in risky behaviour and any life involves some health-risk
FOR AGAINST
Strengths:
ForAgainst
Universality
Respect for Autonomy
Utilitarianism
ForAgains
t
Universality
Non-Maleficence
Beneficence
Deontology
Justice
Utilitarianism
- Patient has the right to make their own choices, even if they are harmful.
If one person is allowed to risk their health by engaging in a dangerous sport, than other people should be allowed to risk their health by smoking
- A transplant could do more
good in a patient who does not
undertake risky behaviour
- The doctor’s duty is to treat patients, irrespective of the cause of illness.- Patient has a right to make decisions for themselves- Refusing to treat a patient based on past lifestyle choices is doing harm.
- Judgment by the doctor may
result in greater good for a
greater number
- scarce resources should be allocated on an equal and fair basis
Egalitarianism
- Priorities must be set to obtain the best outcomes for the greatest amount of
people- “equals should be treated
equally and unequal's should be treated unequally.” When
resources are limited it is necessary to define certain
circumstances under which a
person may not be considered
equally
-It is the doctors duty to provide patients access to health care, regardless oftheir background. - Act for the good ofothers, meaningevery patient who wishes to have atransplant, should receive one.- denial of access to organs based onlifestyle factors could cause considerable harm to the patient.- If organ transplants are prioritised based on risky lifestyle, then all health care should be prioritised accordingly.
Conclusion
Right to Risky behaviour