Ethics is a fundamental requirement in any given profession. Therefore, it ought to be upheld with at-most consideration it deserves. In the above case study I, as the doctor, have a moral responsibility to take care of my patient. The life of the four-year-old girl is at stake if she does not receive a kidney transplant. The father of the child is a perfect match; however, he is afraid of donating a kidney to his daughter. In medical ethics, is it ethical for a doctor to watch a patient die while he or she can do something that will save the life of the patient? Therefore, I will be obligated to counsel the father so that the child can receive a transplant and live a better life (Gillon, 1986).

In this case study, as the doctor, I will apply two moral theories that will aid in making the decision to better the life of my patient and not harm confidentiality of the donor. The value for people’s autonomy is a crucial moral theory that ought to be used (Gillon, 1986)n to make own choices in regard to the events that affect his or her life. Each of us has simply to echo on how morally offended we turn out to be (or would become) if somebody tries to enforce decisions upon uscannot make medical decisions by themselves. This begs the question, when can a child be considered to be mature enough so that they are considered autonomous to enable their decisions be respected and upheld?(Gillon, 1986). For instance, in this case study, the child is four-years-old. It is clear that she is still a minor and maybe does not even know what is wrong with her health. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the doctor to take the patient’s (in this case the four-year-old girl) best interest into heart.

Another key principle applicable in this case is the principle of beneficence (Gillon, 1986). Beneficence is a combination of two Latin words, bene and facere. Bene means well or good and facere means to do. Therefore, the term collectively translates to mean good. It is, therefore, a universal obligation in any profession to uphold it, and a fundamental moral obligation for all healthcare professionals to utilize it. A situation where the health worker acts to benefit himself is highly disregarded. Therefore, all parties involved have to be taken into account when deciding on the path to take. Two principles are applied in this principle, the principle of positive beneficence and utility principle. Under positive beneficence, physicians are obligated to do good for their patients hence the society as a whole. Under utility, the risks of harm ought to be weighed with possible good; hence maximize the benefits that are to be awarded and reduce risks or harm (Gillon, 1986). In this case study, it is the responsibility of the physician to take the interests of the child into account. This is because, with a transplant, the child will live a better life. Therefore, I will apply the principle of positive beneficence because the child will be benefitingkidney. Specifically, the father will only be affected with the scar that is left on his body if the harvesting surgery is successful. On to the child, the availability of a viable and healthy kidney will enable her live a long and healthy lifestyle (Gillon, 1986).

However, physicians are usually faced with a dilemma in situations where the beneficence is pegged with paternalism (Gillon, 1986). It usually occurs in relation to the principle of autonomy and beneficence. Certain medical cases that involve paternalism demand that beneficence ought to take precedence over the principle of autonomy. Therefore, in this case study, the principle of beneficence will be given the most respect.

Reference

Gillon, R. (1986).Philosophical Medical Ethics. Chichester, NY: Wiley.