Comments by Dr. Kate Callahan on her case studies:
| Summary of Case #1 by Dr. Kate Callahan.
Deontology is the theory that...actions in conformance with ...formal rules of conduct are obligatory regardless of the results. Case # 1 presents the conflict between the ethical principal of beneficence and duty. These two are directly opposed methods of ethical decision making. An ethical agent motivated by beneficence is interested in the meaning of her actions in relation to the situation in which she acts. She is oriented to see the situation in an ethical context. She acts to "help or at least do no harm." A person inspired by duty is, of necessity, apathetic toward the context and the people in it. Apathy and beneficence cannot coexist. The violation of any ethical standard for the sake of duty is, at the same time, a violation of fidelity. Because every standard is presupposed by the healthcare professional/patient agreement, every standard is an item of agreement.
|
| Case # 2 Summary by Dr. Kate Callahan
A healthcare professional has an ethical obligation to recognize the fear of a patient who is more fearful than most. She also must recognize and give thought to the cultural underpinnings that may motivate her to act or not to act. These are ways that a professional recognizes the autonomy of her patient. Each patient has the right to be who he is, and this patient is more fearful than most. This case addresses the two ethical standards of autonomy and privacy. An individual persons right to privacy is an outgrowth of his autonomy, and outgrowth of his "right" to be what he is. one thing that every person is, regardless of other differences or similarities, is an independent individual. Every person is private-by nature. one cannot deny (violate) the privacy another without, at the same time, denying (violating) his autonomy. Nor of course, can one violate the autonomy of another without violating his privacy. If a healthcare professional rigorously accepts a patient's autonomy she cannot violate his privacy. Autonomy is individual and independent uniqueness and must be identified by the healthcare professional within the context of the professionals culture but independent of one's own beliefs. The autonomy of the patient must be respected always. A person's right to autonomy is that moral property whereby he has the right to be dealt with according to his own uniqueness. A person's right to privacy is his right to self ownership, which includes his right to be free of undesired and undesirable interactions or relationships. For Rachaela, who finds herself in a double bind, neither autonomy nor veracity will enable her to work her way out of this dilemma. It would be appropriate for her to seek guidance from Ken's physician and employ him/her in the process of veracity. |
| Summary of Case #3 by Kate Callahan
Kathleen faces an apparent conflict between an aspect of Mohan's autonomy (the fact that he is Hindu) and his privacy (the fact that he wants to be left alone). If Kathleen breaks in on Mohan's mourning, this will be a violation of his autonomy. The only way it could be otherwise would be if Mohan does not enjoy self-ownership but is owned by his physician, or, perhaps by his religion. That he is owned by his religion suggests that the autonomy that ought to be respected is not Mohan's uniqueness but only a facet of his uniqueness-his religion. It suggests that Mohan has a right to be dealt with, not according to HIS uniqueness, but, according to the uniqueness of his religion. The idea that Mohan's uniqueness might be the property of his physician is even more absurd. there is no way to make the idea that Mohan is owned by someone or something other than Mohan himself ethically intelligible. On the other hand Kathleen would violate Mohan's right to privacy. She would do this because his physician decided that the practices of Mohan's religion are more important to Mohan right now than his experience of the loss of his wife. In asking to be left alone Mohan made a decision concerning his privacy. if he has a right to privacy, then, of necessity, he had a right to make that decision concerning his privacy. It might be argued that it is not Mohan but his physician who decides what interactions Mohan finds desirable or undesirable. there is no reason whatever to believe that Mohan would order his priorities in this way or turn his self-ownership over to his physician in this context. The conflict between Mohan's autonomy and his privacy is merely apparent. Both have been violated. There has been no conflict between them. No conflict between autonomy and privacy is possible. One does not have rights desire by desire, but in the context of one's life and over the whole span of one's life. Whatever Kathleen does, she cannot escape a need for keen ethical judgment.
|