Beneficence
According
to the principle of beneficence, the guardian ad litem appointed to decide the
fate of Joseph
Saikewicz should prioritize ‘doing
good’ above everything else. The Guardian ad litem is mandated to act ethically
to solve the medical dilemma for the patient, given his inability to make sound
and informed judgment regarding his health situation. The fact that Joseph has no close relatives and cannot communicate
audibly makes it harder for the decision makers to find the way forward. As
stated, chemotherapy for patients over 60years can be fatal. Its choice as a
method of treatment for Joseph (70
years old) will be a violation of the principle of Beneficence. Though there
are no promises that a stem cell transplant would be the best option, the fact
that the alternative option can be fatal for patients with advanced conditions
makes a stem cell transplant the appropriate choice.
Least Harm
Conclusion
There
is a sharp contrast in the beneficence principle and the ethical principle of
‘least harm’. While both can be applied in the case of Joseph ,
it is undeniable that there will be repercussions on any decision made.
However, the aim is to provide an appropriate treatment to the patient. Thus,
any decision made should focus on the patient’s mental status. If need be, bone
marrow transplant should be considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment