Review of exam 1

AT LEAST 250 words long in which you answer ALL of the below questions in your own words considering the above prompting text, making sure to argue for your answer. 1.What do you think of cultural relativism - the suggestion that there exists no objective moral truth, just different subjective opinions on the matter? Is it a sound theory or a dangerous one that should be rejected? Why? Is there such a thing as a universal moral truth (which is NOT the same thing as asking if there is a moral rule to which everyone agrees)? Can you think of an example? 2.What would you do if you were a medical practitioner presented with the patient described above in the "Overview Prompt"? Would you defend your sacred duty as a caregiver to heal - an objective ethical value? Or would you respect the patient's "moral values" as equally appropriate and defensible as yours, thus not intervening? Why? Here is the case: CHALLENGING ISSUE: CLAIMS OF SIBLINGS Matt was born a year ago. At birth, he was diagnosed with Down syndrome. He is more significantly affected by the condition than many people born with it. Among other things, Matt is unlikely to progress beyond a developmental stage of the average 2½-year-old. In addition, he has a congenital heart condition related to Down’s. During Matt’s gestation, his mother, Jill, was under the care of Dr. Ralph. Dr. Ralph did not inform Jill about the availability of prenatal testing even though Jill was thirty-nine during the pregnancy, an age at which women have a higher chance of having a child with Down syndrome. Jill and her husband, Ed, have two other children, Harriet and Henry, ages eight and five. Jill and Ed claim that if they had been told about amniocentesis, Jill would have had the test done. They also say that when the test revealed the presence of a fetus with Down syndrome, they would have terminated the pregnancy. Jill and Ed say that, among other things, they would not have thought it “fair” to continue with a pregnancy that would result in Harriet and Henry having a sibling with Down syndrome. Jill and Ed have sought damages for wrongful birth, and Matt seeks damages for wrongful life. In addition, Harriet and Henry are seeking damages. They claim that Matt’s birth and life are causing them to suffer financial and emotional difficulties and that they are being deprived of the attention their parents would be able to give them if Jill and Ed were not required to devote so much time and energy as well as money to the care of Matt. Do you think as an ethical matter that Harriet and Henry should proceed with their suit? Do you think as a legal matter that they will be allowed to go forward with their claim? you might need my textbook. If you need it, please let me know I'll give you the login information to electronic book. Summary of the Case The scenario involves a child, Matt who was born with Down syndrome which has significantly affected him partly due to other complications that accompany this condition. When Matt’s mother (Jill) was pregnancy, Dr. Ralph did not inform her about availability of amniocentesis. Jill and her husband claim that if they had been told about existence of such a technique, they would have tested their child and make an informed decision on whether the child should be born or not (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 179). They contend that of they realized that Matt has the disease, they would have terminated the pregnancy. Currently, they are suffering financially and emotionally as a result of the effort they have to put in caring for Matt. As such, Harriet and Henry were to put law suit due to these distresses. Ethical Problem The ethical issue at hand regards Dr. Ralph withholding information about availability of genetic testing technique and pertains the principle of wrongful life, wrongful birth. Arguably, the doctor made a decision without disclosure of relevant information concerning the existence of amniocentesis. In other words, Ralph failed to give Jill and her husband important details which could have helped them make an informed decision on whether or not to abort the fetus (Dolgin, Janet and Lois, 2009). The physician withheld information about the nature of the illness and expected outcome. The two parents feel that Ralph breached on their right to self-decision that can only be exercised if individuals have sufficient information to allow them to make an informed choice. Furthermore, the think it is the physician’s obligation to provide information accurately according to good medical practices which mean disclosing respectfully and sensitively all the information to the client (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 172). Ethical Alternatives Even though Jill had reached the age in which many women have a high risk of giving birth to children with genetic defects, the principle of autonomy significantly applies in this case and should be considered. By definition, autonomy is a principle concerned with personal rule of self that is free from interferences from others that prevent making meaningful choices. It implies allowing the patient to make their own decision as they may be the only party who understand the situation at hand fully. Parents such as Jill and her husband have the right to make decision for their born and unborn children as they see fit (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 172). They have the right to support and guidance from medical teams in making those choices. It means that physicians should provide relevant information for them to make decisions that are well-informed. Apart from the parental authority, parents are the one that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make. Also, they know the situation at hand fully, for example, Doctor Ralph may not have had information regarding Jill’s family financial status (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 173). Therefore, withholding information about availability of amniocentesis significantly breached on the Jill and her husband’s right to decision making based on their children’s best interest. Similarly, it is recommendable that the burden and benefits to the patient and family are taken into account. For medical practitioners, this is what can be branded as patient’s best interest. In the underlying case, the parents are the only ones who could properly consider the burdens and benefits of the entire family if they were given the right information at the time of Jill was pregnant for Matt (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 174). Coupled with this is that medical teams have an obligation to deliver on their services in the best interest of the society. It implies considering the financial well-being of the society which should coerce them to provide the required information in support of patient autonomy. In essence, the doctor seems to have relied on the principle of beneficence which does more harm than good in this situation. Beneficence refers to the actions taken to the advantage of others. This can be done to prevent an act of another in an attempt to improve a situation. However, Dr. Ralph does not appear to have understood the full details of what was at stake and his action caused more harm to the family. Good medical practice requires physicians to refrain from causing any harm to the patients in any way as the goal of medicine is promote health and well-fare individuals and the society as a whole (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 174). Clearly, the Dr. did not weight the possible merits and demerits of withholding medical information. Solution to the Issue From the analysis, Harriet and Henry should proceed with their lawsuit as it is clear that the doctor breached the principle allowing their parent to make decision autonomously. Dr. Ralph prevented Jill and Ed from exercising their free power of choice. Also, the physician action of withholding information about availability of the genetic testing methods breached code of providing informed consent (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 176). This requires that the patients are provided with adequate information to comprehend the nature of their decision made. Therefore, the doctor played a significant role in the suffering Harriet and Henry are currently experiencing and he is liable for these injuries. Furthermore, there is a good chance that they can prove the necessary causation as their parents agree that they would have aborted the fetus if they were given the information and the doctor did not comply with the doctrine of informed consent. In other words, they can substantiate that Dr. Ralph did not to disclose pertinent information to their parents which led to giving birth to a baby what was severely affected by Down syndrome and that they are suffering emotional and financial injury as a consequence of that failure (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 176). Harriet and Henry’s parents can testify that they would have terminated the pregnancy had they been informed of the availability of the procedure for testing this genetic disorder. How the Solution Pertains to Applicable Law Tort lawsuits this case as it involves a wrong action that causes suffering to Harriet and Henry. The issue can be classified under negligence of Dr. Ralph to cause Matt to be born, yet he has a severe genetic impairment. The plaintiffs have to report the cause to recover damage for the damage caused to them by the negligence of the defendant (Dolgin, Janet and Lois 177). If the doctor had provided the information, Jill would have had a chance for lawful abortion hence eliminating the chance of causing suffering the Henry and Harriet. Conclusion Indeed, the case at hand involves wrongful life, wrongful birth cause by withholding information about the availability of amniocentesis as a technique for testing genetic disorder. More specifically, the matter is about wrongful life, a situation where parents or sibling of a person place a lawsuit against a defendant based on the idea that a pregnancy could have been terminated to prevent the birth of that individual. Clearly, the doctors should have considered the principle of autonomy and provide Jill and Ed with information about the existence of Down syndrome testing method. As such, Harriet and Henry should proceed with suing Dr. Ralph under the tort law. As such, this is the primary aim of writing this memo, to provide details of the case as well as the solution.