Various Aspects of Healthcare Ethics - Essay Example

Health Care Ethics This paper seeks to highlight on healthcare ethics with respect to relativism, speciesists and utilitarianism. All these are important aspects of health care ethics. Health care ethics refers to how a health care professional act for the benefit of the patient and his/her family in general. In the process, it is expected that the health care professional make the right choices relating to the life and death status of the patient. Relativism dictates that every existing point of view is valid in addition to the truth being relative to the particular individual in question. Relativism has taken root in the current world society in the sense that an individual is free to commit a wrong deed and easily get away with it. This is as long as he or she can justify his/her actions (Hinderer, chap. 4). A typical example of this scenario is social tolerance towards acts that were strongly condemned in the past. Incidences of social tolerance include homosexuality, the lenient judicial system, pornography, adultery and even fornication. Ethical relativism on the other hand refutes the existence of moral absolutes. It dictates neither morally wrong nor morally right deeds do exist. This theory finds it easier to link the right and wrong deeds to social norms. According to Hinderer (Chapter 4), relativism does not qualify as a basis of professional practice and as an ethical theory. Ethical relativism undermines the influence of morality as a unifying factor in the society. Ethical relativism does not hold the account of an absolute right or wrong. A right or a wrong can only be established by use of logic, observation, preferences, emotions, experiences and relevant rules. Most cultures if not all perceive vices such as cheating, lying, murder and stealing as evils of the society thus wrong. Whenever an individual goes against such laws then he or she is punished. Moral absolutes such as the Ten Commandments (Christianity) have no changed since (Hinderer, chap. 4). It is interesting to note that none of them depends on social norms yet they are still true. This is to say that laid down rules and doctrines of the various religions find fault in ethical relativism. This theory has also been faulted because considers the right, wrong and the truth as relative. It does not make sense to conclude that certain things are right on the basis of a school of thought by a group of people. A typical example of this scenario was the slave trade where by as much as it was acceptable in the past, the world today does not entertain it. In general, relativism does not provide for absolute ethics. Ethical relativism on the other hand undermines the existence of God according to the various religious systems in the world (Wear, Bono and McEvoy, 10). It should also be understood that this theory is faulted simply because ethical standards and norms keep changing with time. Relativism becomes false on the basis of an individual’s affiliation to a particular religious system. Personally, it is false since it does not recognize absolute ethical values. On the contrary it is true that many people accept this theory simply because it is not as strict as long as an individual or a group of people can justify a deed, then it is right. This theory offers a comfort zone that is relatively free of condemnation thus an ever increasing following. According to Hinderer (chap. 5), speciesism can be defined as a discriminative gesture by human beings against other species. It can also be defined as the act of putting human beings under privileges and advantages as opposed to animals. As a result, different species have different rights and values. Peter Singer’s arguments, with respect to whether our treatment of animals is speciesist or not, is valid. The fact that animals too share similar moral status with human means that they should be treated right without discrimination. Cruelty spans from factory farming all the way to laboratory tests carried out using animals. It is therefore wise for Peter singer to encourage people to switch to being vegetarians in order to check on animal rights. As much as animals cannot speak or reason out does not mean that they do not suffer (Hinderer, chap. 5). The fact that they can feel both pleasure and pain does not make them any different from human beings. The superiority of a human being should not be protected at the expense of the animals’ welfare. Animals are usually subjected to torture in the name of rearing or keeping them. A good number of philosophers including Peter Singer liken speciesism to racism. They feel that speciesism is meant to lock out other groups from the free benefits of a common environment that is shared by both human beings and animals. Speciesism can also be compared to sexism in the sense that only the interests of a particular type of sex are protected. Utilitarianism dictates that the moral value of a particular action can be established through its results thus consequences. Peter Singer as a utilitarian admits that many animals only care about how they are treated as opposed to whether they are slaughtered or killed for various purposes. The development of new cosmetics by placing concentrated solutions painful, blinding chemicals in the eyes of rabbits, is immoral. In this case, the rabbit is mistreated through the pain it undergoes in addition to the chances of it going blind. Veal is flesh or meat from a calf. Just like human beings animals are entitled to a right to life at least to the stage where they are mature enough. Killing an animal before it attains its maturity is ethically not fair thus an immoral gesture that is very likely to be condemned by any utilitarian. The consequences of this act are not acceptable. Hunting for sport in itself is immoral; it only benefits a few in the sense that the number of people who depend on hunting for survival purposes is larger than those who hunt for sport. Hunting for survival is meant to sustain life there not unethical. Hunting for sport tends to interfere with the normal life of an animal or living organism. All these points with regard to personal speciesist behavior are very important in that as an individual I am ready to stop related behavior and consider fair and equal treatment to animals. I am therefore ready to change my behavior because of the ethical boundaries that should be taken into consideration. Utilitarians believe that when an action tends to maximize an individual’s happiness then it is acceptable (Hinderer, chap. 5). The issue of whether prostitution should be legalized or not has for a very long time raised sharp debates across the globe. Prostitutes earn a living through this act while their clients can easily access and enjoy sex with limited difficulty. At the end of the day both parties are happy mainly because their needs would have been satisfied. Some prostitutes could argue that they are doing it perhaps to earn daily bread for the family. Yes, it could be logical but not ethical. When the concept of mutual consent comes in, it therefore nullifies its ethicality. You engage in prostitution to perhaps satisfy your own sexual desires; an issue that does not benefit a group. Hence, prostitution is not democratic. Recreational drugs offer pleasure to the users (Wear et al., 11). They feel relaxed and therefore happy at the end of the day. In the above mentioned cases, the chances of happiness are greatly increased thus coinciding with the definition of utilitarianism. On the other hand, these will be regarded as bad in the event that they tarnish the morals within the society. It is therefore difficult to explain the two cases in relation to utilitarianism. The difficulty is due to the fact that utilitarianism bases its argument on the outcome of the action. The Kantian approach is in a good position to solve this difficulty because it will only judge the action as opposed to the outcome. Kant argues that for an action to be moral, it has to operate from a certain sense of duty. It therefore advices that, one should act in a manner that the choice made, can become a universal law (Hinderer, chap. 6). This hence directs that an individual should act in a manner that someone else somewhere will wish to follow your maxim. It in the essence means that the decisions that you make, should mentor someone else. It therefore works closely with the question of whether one can be a role model or not. Back to the different contexts that have been cited under the utilitarian theory, it therefore follows that perhaps Emanuel Kant’s arguments could be a solution in most cases. A prostitute in this case should ask herself whether someone hunger to emulate her or not. In the event that an individual is both a parent and a prostitute and claims to earn a living from the trade, the she should ask herself whether her children would consider becoming prostitutes in future. Actually, the Kantian arguments can surely be used to resolve such a difficulty. Duties to self and to others should also not be bias and selfish. I quite agree with Kant that, if your actions are undoubtedly moral, then you stand a chance to perform a duty for others. This duty could be mentoring them and being a role model. In conclusion, ethics works also interchangeably with rationalism. Therefore, when we are making ethical decisions, rationalism calls us to use our reasoning but not our emotions. This is because, reasons rely on facts towards a conclusion (Hinderer, chap. 6). Rationalism also calls us to always be in a position to find the best explanation rather than being ready to see ourselves as being right. We should also be in a position to recognize our prejudices, biases, assumptions and we should be in a better position to know ourselves. Honesty and open mind are also factors that should be emphasized in order for us to achieve this great goal of ethical analysis and judgments. Work Cited Hinderer, Sarah and Hinderer, Drew. “A Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Care Ethics.” 2001. Houston: Mayfield Publishing Company. Chapter 4-6. Wear, Stephen, Bono, Gerald and McEvoy, Adrianne. “Ethical Issues in Health Care on the Frontiers of the Twenty-First Century (Philosophy and Medicine)”. London: Springer, 2001. Pp. 10-13. Read More