The physicians are often perplexed to reach a particular point of conclusion that would provide best moral support to their patients. On one hand, their professional philosophy, in particular, suggests them to perform certain acts that are aimed at serving best interests of patients and on the other, the broad humanist outlook prevents them from performing those acts. Thus, remaining within the limits of a professional boundary, as sensitive as healthcare services, it really becomes tough for professionals to assimilate both these sides and churn out a constructive decision that would fulfill best interest of patients. There is no denial of the fact that since very childhood, every individual adheres to some extent or the other to the “institution of morality” (Beauchamp, and Childress, 2001, p. 3). This institution of morality provides certain basic principles to all human beings. According to general understanding, “All persons who are serious about living a moral life already grasp the core dimensions of morality. They know not to lie, not to steal property, to keep promises, to respect the rights of others, not to kill or cause harm to innocent persons …. All persons serious about morality are comfortable with these rules and do not doubt their relevance and importance” (Beauchamp, and Childress, 2001, p. 3). However, problem or confusion arises when it comes to assimilating both these aspects and the situation practically reflects one of the very common ethical dilemmas that a physician encounters.
Morality, though the term encompasses within its broad scope a number of issues, however, it can be classified into two segments, depending over its application separately in universal and specific situations. The aspects of ethical conflict, which confuse most of the people both in professional and personal dimensions of life, actually arise due to the conflict between common and specific morality. There are certain