Every philosophical current has brought to this world its own reflections on the nature of things. All the philosophers, despite the similarity of his statements with the speeches of other philosophical geniuses, had their own point of view and were able to defend it competently by proving the correctness of their judgments. This science is everywhere, in linguistics, in criminology, in psychology, and, of course, in medicine, as it is one of the fields where human interaction is the basis of all activity.
Relativism
As each philosophical movement is unique, we need to look at their differences. One of the most popular movements is moral relativism—supporters of this movement claim that human culture is the yardstick for human values. As every nation is unique with its traditions and principles, we may consider them an integral system of people committed to specific values. This, in turn, means that people are not governed by their individuality but by the standard rules of their culture. However, what then is the basis of this theory if we accept it as a true one? Can we assume that if a nation has a set of rules based on its ethnicity, it will kill its personal moral qualities? When answering this question, we need to understand what the culture was formed under, namely under the influence of the representatives themselves. This means that individuals create a code of rules for everyday needs (Baghramian & Coliva, 2019). It is somewhat controversial to consider this philosophy applicable to medicine, as it is rather difficult to submit to a set of social conventions in treatment methods for an individual. It is more of a general philosophical direction taught from an early age that one should do unto others as one does unto others.
Consequentialism
One of the reverse examples of moral relativism is consequentialism. From the name it is possible to understand the main principle of this philosophical trend. It focuses not on how to act in a particular situation but on what consequences the decision will have. An essential kind of consequentialism can rightly be called utilitarianism. It pushes the individual to make the best possible decision and thereby act more rationally (Ahlström & Dunn, 2018). The problem may be that it is difficult to determine which outcome can be considered more optimal, given that it is impossible to predict all consequences. Each person’s understanding of the most optimal outcome differs.
Interpreters of this theory, namely Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, explained it this way: each thing has its value, internal or instinctive (Stuart et al., 2018). They differ in that the instrumental value relies on what it provides in perspective, whether it is just a means to satisfy a need. There are many such items, the most striking one being money because it is a tool for acquiring things or possibilities that will satisfy a person’s need. As opposed to instrumental, intrinsic value relies on the object of pleasure itself, something that directly brings joy to a person. In this respect, it is possible to construct a logical assumption that what brings happiness is the best solution for problem-solving (Stuart et al., 2018). However, there are several downsides, the most important of which can be seen as the fact that there are problems that involve killing or other immoral things to satisfy utilitarianism. It is possible to present this theory within the medical sphere. Still, considering that no harm should be done when treating a person, even if this is a more rational method of dealing with a specific situation.
Deontology
Besides, there are so-called deontological theories based on action rather than a consequence. These theories are based on a sense of duty and the ideal performance of the task, regardless of the outcome. However, it should also be kept in mind that commitment is different for everyone. It is impossible to say precisely what is at the heart of each representative of deontology. The adherents of these theories pay special attention to the deeds of others and give them characteristics. The most important representative of deontology is Immanuel Kant, who formed his approach based on this philosophical movement. According to this theory, Kant suggests acting according to those moral norms regarded as universal. This means that all ethical principles should be unitary, and one should only obey those moral norms established by society. Kant also states that man should be treated with respect for his intrinsic value, which has already been mentioned earlier (Husain Sarkar, 2018). This leads to the idea that Kant told to treat people with respect and understanding, appreciating their inner culture and knowledge of morality. However, his philosophy, too, is far from ideal. Deontology is tied to a sense of duty, it does not allow one to overstep established boundaries. It requires an evident satisfaction of the necessary task, which is also a problem in patient care, where there are situations where one must improvise despite the rules.
Principilism
Principilism is directly linked to medicine as the set of established rules can be directly applied in this field. Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress were among those who shaped its major milestones. The whole essence of this current boils down to the rules that must be respected when dealing with patients: the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The first principle speaks of respecting the autonomy of the patient, the second of always endeavoring to help the patient, and in addition to this principle comes the third, which states that no harm should come to the patient, and the last principle sums up all the above and speaks of treating them fairly (Beauchamp & Veatch, 2017). Although this current is very relevant and important, it also has a number of disadvantages. Like Kant’s philosophy, it has its limitations, which do not allow a departure from the rules and binds many possibilities. Principilism balances consequentialism and deontology, but this balance is very difficult to achieve, and there is often a tipping point to one side, which tends to ruin the current a bit. However, this does not invalidate the fact that it is in the combination of these two theories that the most optimal treatment process takes place, as both the method of treatment and its consequences are taken into account.
Other Theories
In addition, there are a number of other theories that allow the treatment process to be approached from different angles. These are theories such as virtue ethics of care. Virtue ethics views people as those who can construct their own attitudes towards others. What is meant is that if all people act kindly towards others, then others will adopt this, and there will be no problems in society. The ethics of care, or feminism, says to treat people with more understanding, more feminine, and more considerate of others. Both theories are valid, but they cannot fully address the issue of ethics in the medical field.
Conclusion
In summary, it can be said that, as mentioned at the outset, each philosophy has its own distinctive features. From the examples discussed, it has been seen how and on what one or the other theory is based and what are the implications of their use. Each current brought something unique to the table, thereby complementing the other philosophers and forming a coherent picture of ethical approaches to patient care.
References
Baghramian, M., & Coliva, A. (2019). Relativism. Routledge, An Imprint Of The Taylor & Francis Group.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Veatch, R. M. (2017). Ethical Issues in Death and Dying. Prentice Hall.
Sarkar Husain. (2018). Kant and Parfit : the Groundwork of Morals. Routledge.
Ahlström Kristoffer, & Dunn, J. (2018). Epistemic Consequentialism. Oxford New York Oxford University Press.
Stuart, J., Bentham, J., Austin, J., & Warnock, M. (2018). Utilitarianism and, On Liberty. Blackwell.