+ According to traditional bioethics, some ethical ways of allocating resources are those dependent on equal health care needs, healthy workforce, and QALYs. Equal healthcare means that resources that are allocated in ways that are equally distributed among all those patients that have the same health care needs. This view in traditional bioethics treats all subjects the same regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, certain patients might not be prioritized because all patients would be given the same treatment. A healthy workforce is also a way of allocating resources according to traditional bioethics because those that are involved might look at the need to have a healthy workers. This would allow those that are patients to be cured because …show more content…
For the equal health care needs, critical bioethics might not emphasize the importance of resources being equally distributed since not all resources need to be equally distributed. Critical bioethics would instead emphasize the importance of the lived experience of beings. The lived experience sees individuals as autonomous beings making rational choices. This allows the individuals to be accounted for according to their experiences rather than as an aspect of the entire population. Therefore, critical bioethics would allocate resources in a way that understands the lived experience of beings. Further, QALY’s would also not be the best allocation of resources according to critical bioethics. Critical bioethics frays from the objective view of beings. Since normality and quality of life can’t be defined by some objective approach, critical bioethics wouldn’t use this as a principle in allocating resources. Critical bioethics emphasizes the importance of subjectivity of experience and quality would be a challenge to measure abstractly. Also, quality of life can’t be objectivity measure since that would mean that normal has to be defined, which is not the case for critical
* Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).
Bioethics is a very diverse and subjective issue in Buddhism that bases its self around fundamental Buddhist laws such as the five precepts, the four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold path. Each Buddhist variant approaches bioethics differently based on the variants primary goal, ideals or practices. However all Buddhists views of bioethics are somewhat influenced by the universal goal of Buddhism to become liberated from the constant cycle of reincarnation or samsara. In conjecture with Buddhism, the occurrence of samsara allows for one to attain a new view on everything including bioethics allowing for the chance to discover or come to an ultimate realisation which in turn allows for the ultimate realisation of issues relating to
P1 Explain the Concepts of Equality, Diversity and Rights in Relation to Health and Social Care
health care services are limited, it is necessary that the available services are distributed fairly and in the most equitable way possible. In an effort to comply with the principle of justice, individuals who have unfair advantages over others must give up their privileges for the betterment of all (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2008, p.73). The discriminatory practice of denying health care coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions while others had insurance was in direct violation of this ethical principle. Although health care reform is often fueled by logical socio-economic reasons and the laws are rationalized within the context of the political sphere, compassion for others is at the base of these changes. Compassion is the ability
Explain the concepts of equality, diversity and rights in relation to health and social care
In an ever evolving society, the increased use of technology has become a staple in our day to day lives. With the constant advancements of technology the ideology of cloning has now become a reality. The increasing use of science today is slowly leading to the development of cloning and genetic selection. By altering the genetic make-up of a being, scientists have brought about several questions on how the population would adjust to the “super-beings,” and what benefits and consequences both human and non-humans would gain with their creations? Authors Francis Fukuyama, who wrote “Human Dignity,” and The Dalai Lama, writer of “Ethics and the New Genetics,” has called into question the use of cloning and how it could possibly affect others. With the creation of “super-beings,” humans would ultimately suffer a bigger separation from each other and create unfairness among the human species such as a stronger and more intelligent being.
Online technologies are beneficial to the modern world. It can improve a person’s education, business, and helps in everyday life hassles. It has become an essential part of the way that people live and it is very likely that people would be a loss without it. In “Ethics and the New Genetics,” the Dalai Lama claims that to ethically use new technological advancements we need to develop a “moral compass”. Peter Singer, in “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets,” discusses whether new technology and “openness” makes our lives better, or if the lack of privacy takes away the rights of individuals. Both authors discuss how technology is advancing very rapidly and can significantly have major pros and cons to society. The two authors, however, have different viewpoints in which how the society can determine when technology has become ethical. Dalai Lama is firm believer that technology is evolving so fast that ethics could hardly keep up with it. He addresses how people should have ethical standards when dealing with the internet. Thus, he is directly proving to us how he would want society to ethically determine when and how technology should be used. Yet, on another spectrum, Peter Singer argues that although ethically, internet is invading our privacy, this invasion of privacy is the only way that the public is safe and people should brutally discover the truth about everything but somehow it can cause harm. Peter Singer and Dalai Lama both agree how the new online
From a social justice perspective, quality healthcare is perceived as an innate right of every individual. The problem with this perspective is it is not a universally held sentiment. For example, individuals would argue from an economic standpoint that social justice is a “value” and healthcare is a commodity which drives our nation’s economy, thus presenting
However, the framework has also provoked controversy and questions about its adequacy to resolve critical issues in bioethics and in clinical practice. In response, Beauchamp and Childress here offer an extended defense of their theory and critical examination of points of debate.
This often leads to high mortality rate and low life expectancy. Of course, the susceptibility of certain population groups to certain illness play a role but, equal health care could greatly minimize these incidences.
Moreover, the lack of access to health care is morally wrong because it is a fundamental right for humans to maintain self-dignity, fairness in the dispensing of health care, and the inclusion of all in society. Kantian’s ethical theory would argue that it is a moral duty to distribute health care more evenly so that the disadvantaged members of society have a similar chance at access to care. The consequence of those health disparities among the disadvantaged affects everyone’s quality of care and affects communities’ adversely. As a result, the cost shift from annual emergency room visits by the uninsured cost the public over $100,000 billion annually and as a result, distributes approximately an additional $1000 to each family’s insurance premium (Lachman, 2012)). Another example of distribution injustice is the unfair allocation of health care among race and gender. Studies have shown that there is a racial and gender bias in end stage renal failure patients, there is a disproportionate number of white males referred to transplant specialists as opposed to blacks and women. Additionally, their wait on the transplant list is longer, if they ever make it onto the waiting list (Beauchamp, 2013).
In assessing the current pitfalls of society that have resulted in an unjust health care system, income and medical knowledge are at the forefront. In an attempt to hypothesize a just system for health care, fair income and equal state-of-the-art medical knowledge seem
Everyday, healthcare professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their workplace. These ethical dilemmas need to be addressed in order to provide the best care for the patient. Healthcare professionals have to weigh their own personal beliefs, professional beliefs, ethical understandings, and several other factors to decide what the best care for their patient might be. This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brains hemispheres which has left her unconscious. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for support. She is unable to communicate how she wishes to proceed with her healthcare. Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank feels his mother would want. In the healthcare field, there are situations similar to this case that happen daily where moral and ethical judgment is necessary to guide the decision that would be best for the patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss, compare and contrast the personal and professional values, ethical principles, and legal issues regarding Mrs. Smith’s quality of life and further plan of care.
Decades ago Norman Daniels (Daniels 2000, Daniels 2001, Daniels and Sabin 2002) tried to answer questions that “How can we meet competing health care needs fairly under reasonable resource constraints?” and “Is there instead a fair process for making rationing decisions?” The questions challenged society that whether we knew the determinants of having health equity, do we have any solution to provide a fair process to distribute health resources equitably. From his study, Norman had developed a theory of accountability for reasonableness from the study’s results. The theory of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) (Daniels and Sabin 2008) has been discussed to be a process for decision making on health care priority setting (Daniels 2000,
The growing field of bioethics has greatly contributed to various legislation and public policies as the dialogue it drives asks the important questions such as the ends and purposes of the life sciences and healthcare; the meanings and implications of distributive justice; and issues in global healthcare that deals with life and death. Additional profound questions are raised such as pain