1he Medlcal LLhlcs uebaLe

name
School
uaLe
Introduct|on to the Med|ca| Lth|ca| Debate
Med|ca| eth|cs ls a sysLem of moral prlnclples LhaL apply
values and [udgmenLs Lo Lhe pracLlce of medlclne
Introduct|on to Lth|ca| 1heory
W 9aLlenL vs Medlcal ueclslon Maklng
W utonomy 1he prlnclple of auLonomy recognlzes Lhe rlghLs of
lndlvlduals Lo selfdeLermlnaLlon Soclal values have shlfLed Lo
deflne medlcal quallLy ln Lerms of ouLcomes LhaL are lmporLanL
Lo Lhe paLlenL raLher Lhan medlcal professlonals
W enef|cence 1he Lerm beneflcence refers Lo acLlons LhaL
promoLe Lhe wellbelng of oLhers ln Lhe medlcal conLexL Lhls
means Laklng acLlons LhaL serve Lhe besL lnLeresLs of paLlenLs
WhaL ls Lhe role of Lhe famlly regardlng declslon maklng?
ha||enges to |y|ng Lth|ca| r|nc||es
W cbolleoqes ManagemenL of Medlcal
lnformaLlon lncludlng prlvacy and
confldenLlallLy LruLh Lelllng and lnformed
consenL
W ofotmeJ cooseot Slgnlng a form ls noL
adequaLe for lnformed consenL
W ,otol coofllcts 1he clash
beLween eLhlcs consumerlsm
and proflL
|omed|ca| Lth|ca| Debates
eLs look aL some of Lhese eLhlcal challenges and case ln
depLh Lo examlne Lhe pros and cons and have a debaLe
LndofL|fe Dec|s|on Mak|ng
W SupporLers of euLhanasla hold auLonomy
lndlvlduallLy and selfdeLermlnaLlon as Lhelr hlghesL
values 1hey belleve lL ls Lhe lndlvldual's rlghL as an
auLonomous belng Lo choose when and how Lo dle
W n LuLhanasla opponenLs hold sancLlLy of llfe ls of
supreme value 1hey belleve LhaL lL ls wrong Lo klll
anoLher human belng Lhrough euLhanasla and LhaL
sulclde and physlclanasslsLed sulclde are lnLrlnslcally
evll
Let's have a debate
Dse Lhe below quesLlons and Lhe 1errl
Schlavo case Lo debaLe Lhe eLhlcs of
LuLhanasla
What ro|e does fam||y |ay |n dec|d|ng the fate of a
term|na||y||| at|ent? Shou|d 1erry's feed|ng tube
have been removed? Shou|d |eg|s|at|on a||ow for
doctor ass|sted su|c|des?
rgumenL lor LuLhanasla
W ln 1998 Schlavos husband Mlchael
peLlLloned Lo remove her feedlng Lube
pursuanL Lo llorlda SLaLuLes SecLlon
763401(3)
W Clven Lhe lack of a llvlng wlll a Lrlal was held
Lo deLermlne whaL 1errls wlshes would have
been regardlng llfeprolonglng procedures
Mlchael vs 9arenLs
W Mlchael clalmed LhaL 1errl would noL wanL Lo
be kepL on a machlne where her chance for
recovery was mlnuscule
W Pe was opposed by 1errls parenLs who
clalmed LhaL 1errl was a devouL 8oman
CaLhollc who would noL wlsh Lo vlolaLe Lhe
Churchs Leachlngs on euLhanasla by refuslng
nuLrlLlon and hydraLlon
lbllography
W reslln ! Mac 8ael ell ! and Slnger 1op 10 PealLh Care
eLhlcs challenges faclng Lhe publlc ,c ,eJlcol tblcs
(2003) 63 from hLLp$$wwwblomedcenLralcom$1472
6939$6$3
W llsher ! (ed) lomeJlcol tblcs A coooJloo locos (2009)
Cxford DnlverslLy 9ress
W Macrollscal lmpllcaLlons of PealLh Care 8eform ln
dvanced and Lmerglng Lconomles llscol Affolts
uepottmeot,l (uec28 2010) from
hLLp$$wwwlmforg$exLernal$np$pp$eng$2010$122810apd
f
W 1he 1erry Schlavo Case CC (Mar 2003) from
hLLp$$wwwcbcca$news$background$schlavo$Lop