Ethical in Medicine

Ethical in Medicine

Ethical Issues

Bioethics involves the concern on the fundamental values of humans like the right to life and the right to healthcare (Vaughn, 2016).  It also puts emphasis on the right or wrong of particular advancements in healthcare organizations, health practitioners, and medicine.  It comprises all of the issues connected to the start and termination of human life.  These issues include in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, and abortion.  Bioethics influence human society at every level.  It is, however, defined as a section of applied ethics, and it needs competence of individuals from a wide variety of professions like medicine, law, nursing, and philosophy (Jericho, 2015).

Bioethical issues that are encountered today include the invention of artificial wombs.  These wombs are meant to facilitate the development of a human fetus independent from a woman’s body.  This has raised concerns with the advocates of women’s rights.  They argue that this invention violates the natural development of humans from conception. According to Yuko (2017), artificial wombs should not be used in the delivery process of babies. Mothers expecting to give birth to children should be allowed to go through the normal gestation process. According to researchers, the use of artificial wombs not only violates legal and ethical rights but also serves as a violation of the moral rights of mothers by taking away their marital instincts.

Also, the use of this method distracts the mother-baby connection as well as their natural interactions. As pointed out by the researchers, there are a few things that have to with artificial wombs. For instance, babies born prematurely exhibit several health complications that occur as a result of underdeveloped lungs, the constant risk of infections, neurodevelopment, and specific nutritional needs. If science developers do end up creating an artificial womb, then this creation would be used inappropriately to extend these limits. Study shows that the most appropriate candidates that are permitted to use the artificial wombs are those infants that cannot be resuscitated.  There is also an argument that this gives physicians the ability to control the child’s right to life as they control every aspect of the artificial womb.  There is the fear of using a fetus as a research specimen, and their deaths would not be a concern of the researchers.  This would contradict the physician’s ethics that require them to protect life at all times.

The head transplant innovation has raised controversy since the head of the individual acts as an element of identification.  It also contradicts with doctors’ ethics to improve patient’s health, as a person’s head will need to be chopped off to transplant it to another person.  This will, in turn, bring the confusion of the person’s identity if at all, they are successful.  Critics have argues that physicians should not engage in altering a person’s hereditary genes as they are identification factors.  Also, since this procedure may involve the transplant of organs from animals, it would endanger the individual’s life if these organs have retroviruses in them.  This, therefore, violates the healthcare ethics that require doctors to provide safe procedures to their patients.

As with any organ transplant, managing the immune response to avoid transplant rejection is necessary. Due to the reason that the brain is highly dependent on a continuous flow of blood to provide oxygen and nutrients and remove waste products, head transplants could be very crucial because damage could set in quickly in the procedure of cutting the blood flow of the brain so that it can be transferred to another body (Adams, 2013). The brain stem primarily governs breathing and heart beating, so if the recipient’s head is removed, it can no longer function. The risk of developing diseases associated with the brain, such as systematic neuropathic pain, is high. It was also stated that people who would undergo head transplant would have fate that could be considerably worse than death. Even though the head transplant would be perfectly performed, we could never mitigate the symptoms as we have literally no idea what this will do to the recipient’s mind. One scientist has tested this on a monkey, and results showed that the lifespan of the monkey only lasted for nine days. It is difficult to assess the mental issues the human may encounter post-transplant with an animal model though it may account for mental stability by analyzing its normal social behaviors; nevertheless, subconscious issues cannot be accounted for within an animal model (Joshua 2016).

The experiment itself is unethical as severing ahead and even contemplating the possibility of gluing axons back properly across lesions to their neighbors seems to be impossible and pure fantasy. There’s no way the brain could be functioning properly after hooking them up

to somebody’s spinal cord. The result would be horrific as it can drive them mad with pain and terror. The body could end up being overwhelmed with different pathways and chemistry than they’re used to. The human head transplant may be a novel treatment in the near future for individuals, but there are numerous ethical issues regarding its procedure. The head transplant could have psychological consequences and reproductive implications, so it better to be safe than sorry.

Exoskeleton for the elderly is also an example of bioethics today.  In a world where modern medicine increases life expectancy well into the 70s for most people, society faces a crisis.  Muscles and bones in the elderly are not always strong enough to support high levels of mobility, leaving seniors with lucid minds and broken bodies.  The AXO exoskeleton for the elderly solves the mobility issue with a lightweight suit the supplements the wearer’s own physical strength.  Small motors drive the limbs, which allows seniors to walk, bend, and squat like someone much younger.  The bioethical question is whether the exoskeleton will be abused to force seniors to work many more years before retirement.  Another fear is that the option of working more years before retirement will be used as a justification to cut benefits for seniors forcing them to stay in the workforce when they want to retire.

Conscience clause is a law that allows a person not to comply with the ethical standards on the basis of their religious beliefs (Sepper, 2012).  It will enable doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare people not to provide services if their conscience or religion is affected.  This law mostly applies to issues related to reproduction, such as abortion, contraception, and sterilization.  Conscientious objection is the noncompliance to execute responsibilities that one is mandated legally on the basis of personal beliefs.  In the health sector, this concept is applied when doctors deny offering particular treatments to patients and parents denying consent for particular treatments on their children.

Healthcare practitioners and organizations should hence be allowed to withdraw procedures that contradict with their religious beliefs or their conscience.  The main controversial procedure is abortion, which most doctors perceive as a life-ending procedure to the fetus hence affecting their conscience.  Any physician or student of medicine should be allowed by the law to cite religious beliefs or personal conscience when without drawing from abortion procedures (Sepper, 2012).  They can still be called upon to help in the procedure but refuse to comply and will not be held accountable.  Another procedure may include withdrawing life support machines from the patient upon the advice of their relatives.  The doctor, though mandated with this responsibility, may refuse to comply with citing religious grounds.

However, the level by which the conscience clause is applied should be regulated to avoid conflict of interests.  There should be a balance between the respect of religious beliefs and the right to healthcare by patients.  This is because the refusal of doctors to offer particular health services may contradict with their ethical standards, which expect them to provide treatment to all patients.  The refusal of parents to give consent to their children for immunization procedures should as well be regulated to avoid medical neglect.  This would also increase the threat to attaining the particular disease by the children as well as risking the spread of the disease to other children in society.

References

Adams, C. (2013). What Would Happen in a Brain Transplant? Retrieved from Washington CityPaper: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/13044921/what-would-happen-in-a-brain-transplant-personalities-bodies-and

Eight Bioethical Issues to know in 2017. Retrieved from: https://healthlaw.hofstra.edu/resources/articles/eight-bioethical-issues-to-know-in-2017/

Jericho, B. G. (2015). Ethical issues in anesthesiology and surgery. Cham: Springer.

Joshua Aaron Cuoco. (2016). Operation Frankenstein: Ethical Reflections of Human Head Transplantation. Retrieved from Insights in NeuroSurgery: http://neurosurgery.imedpub.com/operation-frankenstein-ethical-reflections-ofhuman-head-transplantation.php?aid=9421

Sepper, E. (2012). Taking Conscience Seriously. Virginia Law Review, 1501-1575.

Vaughn, L. (2016). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and case.

Yuko, Elizabeth. “Artificial Wombs Raise Concerns.” New York Times, 9 May 2017, p. D4(L). Opposing Viewpoints in Context,