Introduction
The medical field has been in the recent past advanced in its technological sector. This has in turn led to saving lives of injured casualties. Thus, it has led to most heated debates that encase medical ethics of termination life care and quality of life. The church in the earlier past had a lot of repulsive approaches to “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia” (Deventer 27). Several non-dogmatic natural approaches and deontological theories are being integrated to develop the basis of medical ethics applicability in saving lives. On the other hand, autonomy is quite relational in medical ethics and the professional field. To fully understand the theory of medical ethics, autonomy alone cannot be fundamental because there should correlation between several natural policies. Therefore, autonomy alone cannot be a satisfactory foundation of medical ethics, because medical ethics go beyond the patient’s and practitioners’ professional autonomy regarding health care.
Descriptive and prescriptive
The nature of autonomy in the medical field has both a descriptive and a prescriptive orientation. They are correlated in that the descriptive perspective gives the authority in self-leadership and governance while working. While the latter is the safeguarding or respect of the authority bestowed upon a person with minimal interference. This gives room for a more factual understanding of the autonomy of medical practitioners. For example, the ontological perspective of natural law allows the chance for human autonomy. That is, a patient is accustomed to deciding his life during medical health care. Whereas deontological aspects of natural law give a chance for the medical practitioner to lie or do contrary to what the human ontological autonomy holds. For example, lying may give hope to the patient and siblings even if the patient’s status seems terminal. Thus, the descriptive nature of autonomy needs to correlate with such laws. This builds up a strong basis of medical ethics that will allow the saving of lives. The aspect of making choices will solely depend on the prognosis of the patient. A pragmatic approach is necessary. That is a “relational autonomy” will be efficient (Deventer 72). This will encase the absence of constraint on decision making and bioethics which supports the patient’s autonomy. This will not only allow the patient to pass judgment upon his life but also will give room for apt legal proceedings and confidentiality.
Responsive and extensive relation of autonomy
As discussed above, autonomy needs to encompass the practitioner’s and the patient’s decisions. Therefore, a patient should put into consideration the practitioner’s autonomy. The medical field is a self-regulating occupational field that adapts the individual and professional autonomy perspectives like euthanasia. Thus, this justifies medical practitioners to decide professionally. This gives an essential attribute of discipline in the field of medical health care that gives a scientific or professional discretion of matters at hand. Different social institutions pose different social relations. This gives the practitioner freedom that is sometimes self-regulating and which conforms to non-pragmatic codes of natural laws.
Conclusion
First, when a medical practitioner understands the need of incorporating the choice of the patient and his professional field it will be consequently enough to understand well the rubrics of medical ethics that are acceptable. Hence, there will be maximum utilization of knowledge, skills, confidence, and empathetically empowering of hopeless clients. Lastly, the incorporation of other non-pragmatic natural theories will give an abundance of autonomy both professionally and traditionally in medical care ethics.
Work Cited
Devetter, Raymond. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics. 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.