First of All, honesty is the act of telling the truth. Dr. Bill in the case was missing the term and the concept of honesty in his practice, because he has been diagnosed with Parkinson disease but he decided to keep it secret. Practicing medicine in a professional way require from the physician in the first place to maintain honesty. That means they should be honest with themselves, colleagues and the most important to be honest with the patient. Honesty is the base of the relationship between the patient and the doctors, that’s what makes the doctor a qualified one. Dr. Bill didn’t maintain …show more content…
Benefit the patient can be by relief suffering, prevent a disease or cure it. In this case Dr. Bill didn’t follow this ethical principle in his practice and that makes him unprofessional. The fact that he is diagnosed with Parkinson might hinder him from making a diagnosis because it can impair his physical examination skills. As we saw in the case, because of the tremor it was difficult for him to palpate the patient. I believe that doctors job is to provide the patient better physical and mental health, improving quality of life and they are not there for only earn money. Dr. Bill’s patient mention about his mood status, how it changes from a joyful person to the opposite, this can also cause tension between the doctor and his patient. Balancing beneficence and non-maleficence is a bit challenging, for example, when the doctor decides that this particular medication or operation can benefit the patient and make him live longer with better health, how to measure that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and how this can be not harmful. Managing those can solve the hardest equation in …show more content…
He asked for amputation and the surgeon perform for him the operation so he can consider himself as a complete after that. So do we consider what the doctor done will benefit the patient and it will not harm him? A conflict arises here, because if he keeps the leg he will keep suffering from it and if he amputate the leg, he is harming his body be removing a healthy functional limb. As I mentioned before, every case vary and each situation needs a deep thinking to deal with it the doctor rely upon the patient preference, the source of suffering because he believed that physical could be treated by medication but in this case he should amputate the leg to stop his suffering. The amputation also lead to a better quality of life of this specific patient, and the definition of quality of life varies from one person to