Exam 18: Justice in Healthcare

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

One potential case where the obligation of justice conflicts with the obligation of beneficence for health care providers is in the allocation of scarce medical resources. For example, imagine a hospital with a limited number of ventilators during a pandemic. The health care providers have a duty to provide the best possible care for their patients, which aligns with the principle of beneficence. However, they also have a duty to distribute resources fairly and justly, which aligns with the principle of justice.

In this scenario, the health care providers may face a conflict between providing potentially life-saving treatment to one patient in need of a ventilator, while denying that treatment to another patient who is also in critical condition. This creates a moral dilemma for the providers, as they must balance the individual benefit of one patient with the overall fairness and equity of resource allocation.

Given the discussion in Chapter 18, the health care providers should prioritize the principle of justice in this situation. They should follow established guidelines and ethical frameworks for allocating scarce resources, such as using a transparent and fair triage system that considers factors like likelihood of survival and potential years of life saved. By prioritizing justice in resource allocation, the providers can ensure that their decisions are based on ethical principles and the greatest good for the greatest number of patients, even if it means making difficult choices about individual patient care. Additionally, they should advocate for increased resources and support from governing bodies to prevent future conflicts between beneficence and justice in healthcare delivery.

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

The principle of beneficence in healthcare ethics is often seen as encompassing the obligations of healthcare providers to act in the best interest of their patients and to do no harm (nonmaleficence). However, this view can be argued against by showing how these obligations are actually correlative to the positive and negative rights of patients.

First, it is important to understand that beneficence and nonmaleficence are not standalone principles, but rather they are intertwined with the rights of patients. The principle of beneficence requires healthcare providers to actively promote the well-being of their patients, which can be seen as a positive right of patients to receive appropriate and effective care. On the other hand, the principle of nonmaleficence requires healthcare providers to avoid causing harm to their patients, which can be seen as a negative right of patients to be free from unnecessary harm or injury.

By recognizing the correlative nature of these obligations to the rights of patients, it becomes clear that the principle of beneficence alone cannot fully capture the healthcare providers' obligations. Instead, it is essential to consider the positive and negative rights of patients in conjunction with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence.

Furthermore, the correlative nature of these obligations and rights highlights the importance of respecting the autonomy of patients. In order to fulfill their obligations of beneficence and nonmaleficence, healthcare providers must also respect the autonomy of their patients and involve them in decision-making processes regarding their care. This further emphasizes the interconnectedness of these ethical principles and the rights of patients.

In conclusion, the view that the principle of beneficence can capture the healthcare providers' obligations of beneficence and nonmaleficence is not fully accurate. These obligations are correlative to the positive and negative rights of patients, and it is essential to consider the interconnected nature of these ethical principles and rights in healthcare ethics.