This assignment is designed to give you practice applying our decision model and using the bioethical principles, the ethical theories, and the theories of justice to justify your views.
The decision model, we covered in Week 2, has five steps:
Respond to the ‘sense’ or feeling that something is wrong
Gather the information/assessment
Identify the ethical problem/moral diagnosis
Seek a resolution
Determine a course of action
Using the below case as the basis of this assignment, thoroughly complete each step. Please number each step accordingly, so the steps may be easily identified. Also, conclude with a short reflection, which you can list as Step VI. In this reflection, answer the following questions: Was the decision model useful? Why or why not?
In Step I, you will simply identify the source of tension in the case. In Step II, you will need to do outside research. I don’t want you to simply regurgitate the facts as stated in the case; instead, I want you to concentrate on exploring the unstated facts such as clinical concerns, prognosis, treatment options, legal matters and so forth. This means you will have to additional research about the case, which makes for excellent practice since it will force you to start thinking outside the box! As a result, you are required to use, at minimum, two outside resources. In Step III, you will identify the ethical issues and the main moral dilemma. In addition, you will need to use the ethical perspectives and the theories of justice to analyze and assess these issues. In Step IV, you will need to identify three or more distinct options for action, and adjudicate the pros and cons of these options by using the ethical perspectives. Finally, in Step V, out of the options explored in Step IV, state what option you would choose and why. Look at this as the option you would recommend if you were working with a team of medical professionals on an ethics committee.
In replying to peers, work to point out missing informational gaps and options left unexplored. You can also critique their justifications (Step III) by commenting on the strengths or weaknesses of their arguments, or you can debate the merit of their choice in Step V.
———
Modified From: Veatch, R. M., Haddad, A. M., & English, D. C. (2010) Case studies in biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 103-104
Mrs. Smith brought her 2-year-old son, Tommy, to the pediatrician for an unscheduled visited because he had suffered ear pain and fever for two days. He had cried most of the night, leading her to call Dr. Rust early the next morning. The doctor was able to work Tommy into his afternoon schedule.
Just as he had suspected, Dr. Rust found a case of otitis media, typical of young children. Dr. Rust was certain that it was a common viral infection that would resolve itself in a few days. The medical evidence shows no long-term ill effects of what can be an unpleasant, but relatively benign infection. Dr. Rust urged Mrs. Smith to keep Tommy away from other children and to allow Tommy to rest, but offered no medication. Mrs. Smith, then, asked rather aggressively if Tommy could be prescribed an antibiotic. She wanted to do something for him.
Dr. Rust explained that antibiotics were only effective against bacterial infections and that there was almost no chance that Tommy’s affliction was caused by bacteria. He also explained that extensive use of antibiotics can have side effects for individuals and that it can lead to the development of resistant strains of bacteria. This could eventually mean that some person, including a child, could develop an infection from the resistant strain and suffer consequences much more serious than Tommy’s earache. Yet, Mrs. Smith persisted. She insisted that Dr. Rust prescribe Tommy an antibiotic. So what should Dr. Rust do?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|