Moral philosophy is the reasoned examination of what is right and wrong. Some nursing and other medical judgments can be defined as universally incorrect or right, while others are debatable. The goal of this work is to use the three major ethical theories to assess decisions made in a case study. A 12-year-old child was taken to the clinic with significant injuries incurred in a bicycle accident in the case study. The doctors concluded that the youngster had Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder based on his parents' explanation. Against his parents' wishes, he was put on two drugs at the same time. The parents felt that the doctors should have treated the accident injuries and let him get alternative OCD treatments. They feared that overreliance on medications and increased period of hospitalization was going to cost them more money. They also feared that the boy would suffer from multiple side effects of the medications, especially the OCD ones. However, the doctors went on and administered medications for the two conditions concurrently. In this essay, virtue, deontological and utilitarian theories are applied in determine the moral correctness of the doctors’ decision.
Virtue Theory
The virtue ethics theory focuses on principles, values and good character. For instance, it is expected that a person who is feeling unwell should be given medical assistance. An excellent character such as being able to assist a patient recover is considered a virtue. This theory leads to the assumption that people acquire virtues through practice. A medic should practice to be open, honest and selfless towards the patients in order to develop an honourable and moral character. The issue examined under virtue ethics is not primarily whether the intention or the results of an action are right, but rather the kind of person who is acting (Sinclair, 2016). The act of putting the boy on multiple medication to help him recover fast is an expression of compassion.
When evaluating my colleagues’ action using the virtue theory, I have to temporarily disregard the consequences of their actions and look at whether their decisions were made while displaying good character. The individuals who recommended that young boy should be put on double medication were qualified doctors who were performing their duties in accordance with the Hippocratic oath. From their perspective, they believed that they should deal with OCD and the injuries concurrently.
My colleagues were morally reasonable among themselves when deciding what remedies can be used on the boy’s conditions. It is important to note that that one cannot be morally reasonable to the fullest sense of all the people. From Aristotle’s view of character, virtue lies between two vices. From my observation, the doctors acted out of compassion. They felt that the boy needed to recover as fast as possible and resume schooling and other activities. However, it is important to appreciate Aristotle’s sentiments that virtues lie between vices. Compassion lies between selfishness and envy. A person who is selfish does not consider the values, needs and aspirations of others. When a person considers other people’s statuses very much, they begin to admire them and become envious. In this case, the only possibility of a contrasting vice was selfishness. However, the physicians’ willingness to help the boy shows that they were compassionate.
Deontological Theory
Under the deontological theory, actions are viewed as duties. An action is judged as right or wrong depending on whether the actor meets the established rules. In this case, the action is more important than the character of the person and the consequences. It is important to note that medical service provision follows certain rules. Therefore, a person attending to a patient can only be considered moral if they perform actions that are aligned to the standard practices within their profession (Goetghebeur et al., 2015).
A patient has the ultimate decision-making responsibility in the treatment process. However, this does not undermine the ability of the doctor to apply their knowledge and experience. The medical practitioner cannot impose treatment on a patient (Wolf et al., 2013). The case study involves a minor. This means that the parents are responsible for his treatment and should be making decisions on his behalf. The accident injuries were to be treated as an emergency. However, OCD cannot be regarded as a medical emergency and therefore not exempted under the emergency doctrine. There was need to give the parents time to decide how to treat the boy’s mental condition.
From the perspective of deontological theory, the physicians did not act morally by imposing OCD medication on the boy against the wish of his parents. Patient autonomy remains a key concept in medical practice. Rather than imposing one’s decisions on the patient, the doctor should give the client all the viable alternatives available. This should be followed by a clear explanation on why one alternative is preferred over the others. If the patient or those consenting on his behalf do not have the same preference as the doctor, their choice must still be respected (Wolf et al., 2013). In this case, the physicians went contrary to the wishes of the parents. This violates the right of the patient. The doctors failed in their moral duty to protect the patient. They undermined the autonomy of the boy’s parents and thus their act is considered morally wrong.
Utilitarian
Utilitarianism considers the consequences of an action. An action is considered morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Mandal et al., 2016). In analysing the case study, there are several perspectives from which one can evaluate the consequences. The first one is the short-term result. The parents were not happy with the decision of putting the boy under multiple medications. They felt that this would expose the boy to multiple side effects and increase the cost of treatment. By acting contrary to this, the doctors increased the cost of treatment and put pressure on the family that remained worried of the boy’s wellbeing. Therefore, the actions had negative consequences on the family. If the doctors would have followed the family’s request, more people would have been happy. Therefore, in the short-term, a utilitarian analysis of the case reveals that the doctors’ actions were not morally correct.
The boy was able to recover within a month and resume his studies and other light activities with occasional assistance and supervision. The doctors indicated that treating his injuries before OCD would have elongated his recovery to as much as three months. However, they appreciated that it would have been cheaper for the parents because the period of hospitalization would have been reduced and created space for psychotherapy and other family-centred interventions. The side effects of the medications were manageable because the boy remained under the supervision of medics. In the long-term, the medics, the patient and his family were all happy. Therefore, the second utilitarian perspective portrays the doctors’ action as morally justifiable.
References
Goetghebeur, M. M., Wagner, M., Bond, K., & Hofmann, B. (2015). Analysis Of Ethical Theories And Principles Embedded In Holistic Mcda: A Primer To Ethics-Based Appraisal Of Value In Healthcare. Value in Health, 18(3), A101.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology, 6(1), 5.
Sinclair, S., McClement, S., Raffin-Bouchal, S., Hack, T. F., Hagen, N. A., McConnell, S., & Chochinov, H. M. (2016). Compassion in health care: An empirical model. Journal of pain and symptom management, 51(2), 193-203.
Wolf, S. M., Annas, G. J., & Elias, S. (2013). Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science, 340(6136), 1049-1050.
