Introduction
Ethical and moral problems often arise in health care: they have to do with staff behavior and patient responsibility. Moral dilemmas concern choices that both parties must make. They arise from the availability of objective medical data and inconsistency with already established ideas about ethics. The existence of multiple choices often leads to moral dilemmas, the solution to which lies in considering all sides of the conflict.
Reasons for Struggle When Addressing End-of-Life Issues
End-of-life care aims to relieve patients from unbearable pain and suffering caused by incurable diseases. It is a complex matter, and addressing it may evoke numerous questions about the value of life. Some argue that God gives life, and it is He who should take it away (Chamsi-Pasha & Albar, 2017). At the same time, others say that there is no meaning in living a life of endless pain when an individual has a means to its end. Chamsi-Pasha & Albar (2017) argue that addressing end-of-life issues is always a struggle. This act requires a balance between the patient’s rights, religious doctrines, society’s interest in saving a life, and the integrity of the medical profession.
One of the practices in end-of-life care is euthanasia, which involves the painless killing of a patient due to a severe painful disease. Hospitals are the most trusted places of health refuge whenever an individual is overwhelmed with a health problem. However, euthanasia may erode society’s view and trust in the physician’s efforts to protect human life when doctors themselves assist patients in committing suicide (Pozgar, 2020). This erodes society’s trust in the healthcare system, thereby creating difficulties in addressing end-of-life issues.
The actions of physicians to aid patients in ending their life pose various dilemmas in the efforts to find a solution to the health sufferings of the human race. This can lead to the dilution and stagnation of healthcare’s ability and readiness to handle new disease variants (Ball, 2021). Furthermore, doctors may apply euthanasia where it may not be required due to their reluctance to research and develop a practical solution to the problem. In this observation, people will always view end-of-life issues differently, thereby creating a standoff any time it is addressed.
The Differences between Allowing a Patient to Die and Physician-Assisted Suicide
Physician-assisted suicide involves an action in which a doctor voluntarily assists a patient in ending his life. In this case, the doctor performs euthanasia with the patient’s full consent (Pozgar, 2020). On the other hand, allowing a patient to die entails the withdrawal of a life-supporting tool from the patient to let them die. In this condition, the physician withdraws the life-supporting machines from patients whose death is imminent (Pozgar, 2020). Physician-assisted suicide involves the patient directly deciding to end their life through the doctor’s help. Allowing a patient to die may involve the family’s decision when they lose hope in the patient’s recovery (Pozgar, 2020). On the other hand, allowing a patient may be attributed to the family’s financial constraints and the inability to access treatment. In contrast, physician-assisted can be done even if there are finances.
Knowledge of HIV Diagnosis in a Caregiver
With various legislations, the HIV status of infected individuals remains confidential, and caregivers are no exception (Pozgar, 2020). It can lead to a controversy regarding the patient’s right to know the HIV status of the caregiver. The dispute arises when physicians have to perform risky operations that might result in blood fusion. Some argue that in situations of risky operations, patients should know the status of their caregivers. On the contrary, some argue that caregivers have the right to privacy, and so long as they are keen on taking preventive measures while handling the patient, they should not disclose their HIV status. Therefore, balancing these conflicting arguments creates a moral challenge regarding the privacy trepidations associated with HIV status.
Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Life, and Wrongful Conception: Moral Dilemmas
The difference between wrongful birth, life, and conception is the physician’s responsibility and the parents, who are notified of the likely abnormalities. Physician negligence refers to birth, life, and parental responsibility and has legal consequences (Frato et al., 2017). Malpractice refers to an unplanned pregnancy and the birth of a healthy child, meaning that the physician is not involved in the behavioral strategy of the parents-to-be. These concepts pose a moral dilemma regarding childbirth and child health legitimacy.
In the case of wrongful birth, a moral dilemma on the future of children may arise when a parent gets benefits through the law without valid reasons. It envisages that other individuals might be influenced to participate in this practice to enjoy such benefits (Frati et al., 2017). Similarly, when a mother succeeds in bearing children without abnormality in the case of wrongful conception, a moral dilemma may arise in children’s future birth. Other parents might be influenced not to take necessary precautions, a situation that may hinder the health of future children. In the case of wrongful life, there is the question of how a doctor’s negligence collides with parental irresponsibility-all participants threaten the child.
The Arguments For and Against Partial Birth Abortions
Pregnancies come with physiological changes that may pose specific risks to the individual’s health. In some cases, early or late pregnancy termination may be the only intervention to preserve the individual’s life. For instance, in cases of lethal fetal anomalies, mothers are encouraged to seek abortion since, in this condition, the fetus is undoubtedly non-viable and has no chance of survival even after birth (Rodger et al., 2018). In life-threatening situations like severe preeclampsia, intrauterine infection and premature amniotic sac rupture, individuals can pursue abortion to save their lives (Rodger et al., 2018). Consequently, when the pregnancy poses a high risk to the pregnant person, then partial-birth abortion is encouraged.
On the contrary, partial-birth abortion is considered killing. Various legislation recognizes the start of life at conception. Partial-birth abortion may expose pregnant individuals to risks of getting infections that might lead to death in severe stages. For instance, in the dilation of the cervix, the expectant mother is at risk of getting cervical or fungal infections (Rodger et al., 2018). These infections may compromise the patient’s well-being and, in severe cases, can lead to death if proper treatment is not administered.
Genetic Markers and Stem Cell Research: Controversy
There are questions about whether the embryo is human and whether it has legal and moral rights. The blastocysts cannot develop further after the inner cell mass is removed. If not employed for research, clinics would most certainly reject and destroy them, and it remains controversial (Nwigwe, 2019). Some people feel that a human’s life begins at conception and that embryos deserve to be protected. Specific cultures and religious traditions oppose using human life as a means to another purpose, even if the end is honorable (Mandal). Other cultures embrace embryonic stem cell exploration since they believe that it must take a few months of development for the embryo to have a moral claim to live as a human.
Conclusion
Thus, it is clear from the various controversial issues that ethics and medicine have different perspectives. However, adopting a viewpoint in absentia has consequences. Disclosure of HIV diagnosis violates human rights, and preservation of the fetus can lead to the mother’s death. Destruction of defective blastocysts and euthanasia to moral decline, physician negligence – to fetal abnormalities. On this basis, each side of the moral dilemma should be considered to grasp the issue entirely.
References
Ball, P. (2021). What the COVID-19 pandemic reveals about science, policy and society. Interface Focus, 11(6).
Chamsi-Pasha, H., & Albar, M. A. (2017). Ethical dilemmas at the end of life: Islamic perspective. Journal of Religion and Health, 56(2), 400-410.
Frati, P., Fineschi, V., Di Sanzo, M., La Russa, R., Scopetti, M., Severi, F. M., & Turillazzi, E. (2017). Preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis, wrongful birth and wrongful life: a global view of bioethical and legal controversies. Human Reproduction Update, 23(3), 338-357.
Mandal, A. (n.d). Stem Cell Controversy: Controversy with embryo use. Azo Life Science.
Nwigwe, L. (2019). Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma. Voices in bioethics, 5.
Pozgar, G. D. (2020). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Rodger, D., Blackshaw, B. P., & Wilcox, C. (2018). Why arguments against infanticide remain convincing: A reply to Räsänen. Bioethics, 32(3), 215-219.