Take a moment to consider, your child has recently complained of difficultly swallowing food and hurts to talk for a few days, unlikely a common sore throat. You decide to visit the hospital and doctors provide an oral examination that quickly concludes a case of tonsillitis, a rapid onset of inflammation in the tonsils. They act by scheduling a tonsillectomy for the following day and you leave the hospital within an hour. All would seem right and the doctors did their duty to provide a benefit to their patient through action. However, hours after being sent home from the hospital, your child quickly develops a purple-red rash, a key symptom of bacterial meningitis, an infection of the nerves in the brain and spinal cord that is sometimes missed
…show more content…
Within medicine, a doctor’s course of treatment goes further than simply performing a deed towards a patient. For instance, a doctor trains for years through education, practical experience, and accreditation in order to perform a multitude of complex and difficult tasks. When a patient enters into a hospital with need of care, that doctor will attempt to act in a way that will maximize the benefits while also minimizing additional health risks towards both the patient and society. For example, a patient with a sore throat, broken leg, or fatal illness, a doctor’s decision of treatment may include inaction by prescribing warm fluids and rest, action of placing a leg cast, and action to send the patient to hospice care, respectively. These methods of care follow the guidelines set forth by the principle of beneficence or simply put the ethics to provide good to all parties. Certainly, situations arise when doctors provide action, but do not provide good towards the patient as seen with Gracie Foster. While the doctors still acted in accordance with the principle of beneficence, a child was left dead. Therefore, doctors’ actions and inactions in itself are not always good or evil, but merely the process in which doctors use their best judgement to offer optimal care to the patient and …show more content…
For instance, a 32-year-old male with an unknown illness presents with feeling nauseated and lightheaded with general fatigue, but in stable condition. The nurse runs initial diagnostic tests for the patient while the doctor orders observation. The patient is kept on watch for a few hours before revealing all tests seem to indicate a relatively healthy man with the common cold. The doctor used her best judgement to provide optimal care while still following the principle of beneficence through inaction. At the same time, the doctor did not place any harm or increased risks upon the individual by exposing the patient to unneeded prescriptions. In contrast, the same 32-year-old male presented to the doctor, but instead provided action through the prescription of general antibiotics for his symptoms, an increasingly common practice with medical professionals. The patient would not need antibiotics, as he does not have a bacterial infection, but rather a virus. This situation now places both the patient and society at an increased risk for antibiotic resistant illnesses such as Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), nicknamed Superbugs. Clearly, through inaction, the doctor still provided care and support that would be expected of a medical professional within the community without placing undue
Within medicine, a doctor’s course of treatment goes further than simply performing a deed towards a patient. For instance, a doctor trains for years through education, practical experience, and accreditation in order to perform a multitude of complex and difficult tasks. When a patient enters into a hospital with need of care, that doctor will attempt to act in a way that will maximize the benefits while also minimizing additional health risks towards both the patient and society. For example, a patient with a sore throat, broken leg, or fatal illness, a doctor’s decision of treatment may include inaction by prescribing warm fluids and rest, action of placing a leg cast, and action to send the patient to hospice care, respectively. These methods of care follow the guidelines set forth by the principle of beneficence or simply put the ethics to provide good to all parties. Certainly, situations arise when doctors provide action, but do not provide good towards the patient as seen with Gracie Foster. While the doctors still acted in accordance with the principle of beneficence, a child was left dead. Therefore, doctors’ actions and inactions in itself are not always good or evil, but merely the process in which doctors use their best judgement to offer optimal care to the patient and …show more content…
For instance, a 32-year-old male with an unknown illness presents with feeling nauseated and lightheaded with general fatigue, but in stable condition. The nurse runs initial diagnostic tests for the patient while the doctor orders observation. The patient is kept on watch for a few hours before revealing all tests seem to indicate a relatively healthy man with the common cold. The doctor used her best judgement to provide optimal care while still following the principle of beneficence through inaction. At the same time, the doctor did not place any harm or increased risks upon the individual by exposing the patient to unneeded prescriptions. In contrast, the same 32-year-old male presented to the doctor, but instead provided action through the prescription of general antibiotics for his symptoms, an increasingly common practice with medical professionals. The patient would not need antibiotics, as he does not have a bacterial infection, but rather a virus. This situation now places both the patient and society at an increased risk for antibiotic resistant illnesses such as Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), nicknamed Superbugs. Clearly, through inaction, the doctor still provided care and support that would be expected of a medical professional within the community without placing undue