In American society for the past several years, morality seem to have become equated primarily with people’s personal sexual behavior. The concept of ethics- especially when it comes to a capitalist society that is profit-driven – appear to have been discarded for the most part. Medical ethics is the morality of how humans should treat one another as applied to the health care profession.
This system of ethics has its origins in the teachings of Hippocrates, as well as the great Arab physician Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi, who wrote the first book on the topic; the Catholic abbot Saint Benedict, who said “Above all, care must be taken of the sick as if they were Christ in person”; and the rabbi of medieval Spain, Maimonedes. Modern medical ethics are based on six primary values, the first of which is autonomy; the patient’s own desires and his/her right to refuse treatment (this is at the heart of the second of the two case studies which follow).
The others are beneficence, requiring that a physician always act in the best interest of his/her patient; non-maleficence, the principle of doing no harm; justice, meaning that health care resources are allocated in a way that is most fair and equitable to all; the patient right to dignity; and absolute honesty and truth. There are times when these values may come into conflict, particularly when the wishes of a patient is at odds with those of the family, or a physician’s own personal values.
Often, there is no good resolution. What follows is a study of how these principles of medical ethics are or may be applied in two very different cases. In the first case, a very young patient suffers from an incurable genetic disease; the best standard treatment is not likely to be an option, therefore the physicians must consider two controversial alternatives. The second case deals with a young man with serious burn injuries who has expressed a desire to die, but whose mother insists on treatment.