Short Position Paper

I have chosen to write my short position paper on case #1 Divided Loyalties. I feel the doctor should tell the patients family of his findings, that the father is an excellent match based on the findings that without the transplant the daughter will die. I found when reading this particular case I was very sadden by the father and couldn’t believe that someone would be so shallow to let their own flesh and blood suffer. After researching the case and trying to find the particular moral issues besides the obvious I found that the parents and siblings all gave their consent to have the testing done to find the match. By giving implicit consent we are morally agreeing to accept something regardless of the outcome. All of the family members are aware of the test and if the results come back in her favor that one of the matches will give their own kidney. I found that the physician is put into a situation where many ethical and moral issues are jeopardized when asked to lie to the family. The relevant facts are stated in my argument. The patient is a very young girl with many years left to live and it has been made clear that without the kidney transplant she will not make it. Also she has already been through dialysis and has suffered a great deal from her condition. She has a 90% survival rate which makes the case much more relevant due to the fact that it is such a strong outcome. Not to mention the rest of the family is torn apart and devastated I am sure. As a physician he is to carry out a very specific role to the patients themselves. He has taken an oath to do whatever necessary to take care of the sick child. I am also aware that the father has rights and has come to the doctor in confidently and is worried about his own safety. Due to the nature of the agreement stated earlier I believe he has not been told all the specifics of the operation and if known how much more the benefits outweigh the fear factor he would surely go ahead with it. I believe that he does not see the non-malfeasance of his acts if the shoe was on the other foot how he would be feeling. Also as a physician the beneficence toward the little girl and her safety is more important at this time. The moral value that is most important is truth. The little girl deserves to know what the outcome is regardless of how old she is since she is not old enough to make her own decisions that where the parents come into play. Obviously the father is not in the position to put his little girl first before himself. And that is where I would find that the doctor himself will be there to represent her and make sure that her best benefit is always first. If I was the physician I would offer some kind of counseling to the father and make sure that he is more informed on the risks and benefits of the surgery. The family also deserves to know the truth whether or not the father decides to go on is up to him personally but as a doctor he is not of my concern. Deontological Principle states: Here lying cannot be made into a duty; regardless of the moral benefits it might hold for the other individual. As stated in the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath; “ I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html)”. In closing I can only state what as a doctor I would have done and that would be to have told the family of the results and hoped that the best decision was made in the benefit of the little girl.