SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO
1
SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO Equality Doctor or Arbiter? Conclusion Right to risky behaviour The health practitioner must play an inappropriate role of judging lifestyle factors and their contribution to a patients illness. FOR AGAINST Strengths Undermining of the doctor-patient relationship: - Patients may lose trust & withhold information - Utilitarianism: can the doctor really do the best for the greater good if the doctor-patient relationship is undermined? Each person is considered of equal worth and equal access to health care should be given, regardless of variable need. FOR: Egalitarianism: Scarce resources should be allocated on an equal and fair basis Deontology: It is the doctors duty to provide their patients access to health care that they need, regardless of their background Beneficence: act for the good of others, i.e. every patient who wishes to have a transplant should receive one Non-Maleficence: Denial of access to organs based on lifestyle factors could cause considerable harm to the patient Universality: If organ transplants are prioritised based on lifestyle, then all health care should be prioritised accordingly. This is unfeasible. AGAINST: Justice: “Equals should be treated equally and unequal's should be treated unequally.” When resources are limited it is necessary to define certain circumstances under which a person may not be considered equally Utilitarianism: Priorities must be set to obtain the best outcomes for the greatest amount of people Strengths: • There are many other non-controllable factors that may contribute to the disease, making it impossible to allocate the organ fairly. • The argument of utilitarianism in undermined as a characteristic of this principle is impartiality: each person’s welfare counts equal. Weaknesses: • Argued that people who participate in risky health behavior are contributing to their illness therefore could be considered as unequal according to the principles of justice • To whom should we do good? Giving an organ to a patient with an unhealthy life-style means someone else will miss out. Juliette Roex, Emma Lane, Kate Seagrim, Ned Young, Jaya Lindsay organ transplants lifestyle factors Demand Supply ? Who should receive the organ? For Agains t Non- Malefice nce Respect for Autonomy Deontolo gy Utilitaria nism There is a personal right to engage in risky behaviour and any life involves some health-risk, therefore life-style factors should not influence the prioritisation of organ transplants. FOR AGAINST For Against Universa lity Respect for Autonomy Utilitari anism Respect for autonomy: Patient has the right to make their own choices, even if they are harmful. Universality: If one person is allowed to risk their health by engaging in a dangerous sport, then other people should be allowed to risk their health by smoking Utilitarianis m: A transplant could do more good in a patient who does not undertake risky behaviour Deontology: The doctor’s duty is to treat patients, irrespective of the cause of illness. Respect for Autonomy: Patient has a right to make decisions for themselves Non-Maleficence: Refusing to treat a patient based on past lifestyle choices is doing harm Utilitarianism: Judgments by the doctor may result in greater good for a greater number of people Thorough research has revealed strong arguments on both sides of this debate. We believe the arguments against the prioritisation of organ transplants are more strongly supported by a wide range of ethical principles. Deontology supports that it is not the doctor’s role to choose who lives and dies, but to treat each individual patient equally. Autonomy validates one’s choice to live and enjoy life’s risks, as well as a patient’s right to request treatment. To deny a patient treatment due to their lifestyle choices is not in the patient’s best interests and causes them harm, thus opposing the principals of beneficence and non-maleficence. We believe a system for prioritisation of organ transplants should based on other factors, such as the likelihood of benefit for the patient For Again st Universa lity Non- Malefice nce Benefice nce Deontolo gy Justice Utilitaria nism Egalitaria nism Group Members
-
Upload
mariko-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
50 -
download
2
description
organ transplants. SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO. lifestyle factors. Doctor or Arbiter?. Equality. The health practitioner must play an inappropriate role of judging lifestyle factors and their contribution to a patients illness. FOR AGAINST Strengths - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO
SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO EqualityDoctor or Arbiter?
Conclusion
Right to risky behaviour
The health practitioner must play an inappropriate role of judging lifestyle factors and their contribution to a patients illness.
FOR AGAINST
StrengthsUndermining of the doctor-patient relationship:- Patients may lose trust & withhold information - Utilitarianism: can the doctor really do the best for the greater good if the doctor-patient relationship is
undermined?
Each person is considered of equal worth and equal access to health care should be given, regardless of variable need.
FOR:Egalitarianism: Scarce resources should be allocated on an equal and fair basisDeontology: It is the doctors duty to provide their patients access to health care that they need, regardless of their background Beneficence: act for the good of others, i.e. every patient who wishes to have a transplant should receive oneNon-Maleficence: Denial of access to organs based on lifestyle factors could cause considerable harm to the patientUniversality: If organ transplants are prioritised based on lifestyle, then all health care should be prioritised accordingly. This is unfeasible.
AGAINST:Justice: “Equals should betreated equally and unequal'sshould be treated unequally.” When resources are limited itis necessary to define certain circumstances under which a person may not be consideredequally Utilitarianism: Priorities must be set to obtain the best outcomes for the greatest amount of people
Strengths:• There are many other non-controllable factors that may contribute to
the disease, making it impossible to allocate the organ fairly.• The argument of utilitarianism in undermined as a characteristic of
this principle is impartiality: each person’s welfare counts equal.Weaknesses: • Argued that people who participate in risky health behavior are
contributing to their illness therefore could be considered as unequal according to the principles of justice
• To whom should we do good? Giving an organ to a patient with an unhealthy life-style means someone else will miss out.
Juliette Roex, Emma Lane, Kate Seagrim, Ned Young, Jaya Lindsay
organ transplants lifestyle
factors
Demand
Supply
?
Who should receive the organ?
For Against
Non-Maleficence
Respect for
Autonomy
Deontology
Utilitarianism
There is a personal right to engage in risky behaviour and any life involves some health-risk, therefore life-style factors should not influence the prioritisation of organ transplants.
FOR AGAINST
For Against
Universality
Respect for
Autonomy
Utilitarianism
Respect for autonomy: Patient has the right to make their own choices, even if they are harmful.
Universality: If one person is allowed to risk their health by engaging in a dangerous sport, then other people should be allowed to risk their health by smoking
Utilitarianism: A transplant
could do more good in a patient
who does not undertake risky
behaviour
Deontology: The doctor’s duty is to treat patients, irrespective of the cause of illness.
Respect for Autonomy: Patient has a right to make decisions for themselvesNon-Maleficence: Refusing to treat a patient based on past lifestyle choices is doing harm
Utilitarianism: Judgments by the
doctor may result in greater good for a greater number of
people
Thorough research has revealed strong arguments on both sides of this debate. We believe the arguments against the prioritisation of organ transplants are more strongly supported by a wide range of ethical principles. Deontology supports that it is not the doctor’s role to choose who lives and dies, but to treat each individual patient equally. Autonomy validates one’s choice to live and enjoy life’s risks, as well as a patient’s right to request treatment. To deny a patient treatment due to their lifestyle choices is not in the patient’s best interests and causes them harm, thus opposing the principals of beneficence and non-maleficence. We believe a system for prioritisation of organ transplants should based on other factors, such as the likelihood of benefit for the patient and the urgency of treatment.
ForAgains
t
Universality
Non-Maleficence
Beneficence
Deontology
Justice
Utilitarianism
Egalitarianism
Group Members
