The principle of autonomy would oppose Dr. Rest decision to keep her patients in the dark about an illness. In concluding that the patients should not be informed that they are at risk of developing Alzheimer would take away their right to be self-determining. In not informing them Dr. Rest hinders a humans’ unique qualification to decide what is in their best interest. She predicts that informing the patients that they could suffer from Alzheimer would “cause them distress and unhappiness”. Hence she is choosing for her patients what she believes is right and in the process lessening their position as a person.
Dr. Rent is not practicing according to the moral principle of Beneficence. She is not helping her patients even when she is able to do so. The moral duty of Beneficence imposes social duties on Dr. Rent, she could have accomplished these social duties by educating the at risk patients and their family on the risk of Alzheimer. Her actions do not benefit anyone and would harm them in the future if they did get Alzheimer. Their would be more benefits in informing them that they have the gene APOe. …show more content…
Rest decision unmoral. Her patients are unaware that they could suffer form the 3rd leading cause of death, Alzheimer, just behind hart disease and cancer (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Some would deem that Dr. Rest suffers form inadvertence and avoidable ignorance, in her judgment and therefore would put the patient in harms way. If the patients were previously aware that they could suffer from Alzheimer they would be more vigilante with the early signs that then would cause them less distress than not knowing what going
Dr. Rent is not practicing according to the moral principle of Beneficence. She is not helping her patients even when she is able to do so. The moral duty of Beneficence imposes social duties on Dr. Rent, she could have accomplished these social duties by educating the at risk patients and their family on the risk of Alzheimer. Her actions do not benefit anyone and would harm them in the future if they did get Alzheimer. Their would be more benefits in informing them that they have the gene APOe. …show more content…
Rest decision unmoral. Her patients are unaware that they could suffer form the 3rd leading cause of death, Alzheimer, just behind hart disease and cancer (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Some would deem that Dr. Rest suffers form inadvertence and avoidable ignorance, in her judgment and therefore would put the patient in harms way. If the patients were previously aware that they could suffer from Alzheimer they would be more vigilante with the early signs that then would cause them less distress than not knowing what going