hum writing assignment wk 7

docx

School

Portland Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by HighnessGorillaMaster1527

Devanté J Hamilton I devante.hamilton@pcc.edu October 28, y Humanities 100 Professor Woodbury rachelle.woodbury@pcc.edu Writing Assignment Week 7 I have Amazon Prime, and recently my wife and I completed all eight seasons of the tele- vision medical drama, House . The series’ protagonist is Dr. Gregory House, MD (Hugh Laurie) who leads a team of diagnosticians as the Head of Diagnostic Medicine at the fictional Prince- ton–Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH) in New Jersey. Dr. House is a medical genius, but in the same breath can be described as unconventional, misanthropic, cynical, and narcissistic. Throughout the series, Dr. House struggles with habitual use and dependence on pain medica- tion. In addition, his unorthodox diagnostic approaches and hypotheses, radical therapeutic mo- tives, and stalwart rationality to solve pathological enigmas result in routine conflict between him and his fellow colleagues, hospital administration, and even the legal domains. It seems like every episode deals with a few bioethical dilemmas or controversies. The twelfth episode of the third season of House , “One Day, One Room,” deals with two separate cases have bioethical dilemmas: 1) abortion and 2) refusal of medications. In the first case, House must treat is psychologically disturbed patient named Eve, who is diagnosed with the sexually-transmitted infection chlamydia. Through their clinic interaction and the Eve’s er- ratic response, House realizes she was a rape victim. In an effort to gain Eve’s trust, House shares a personal story about the abuses he received as a child. Later, Dr. Lisa Cuddy, the Dean of Medicine, informs House that Eve is pregnant. House informs Eve that she it pregnant and ex-

plains that she should terminate the baby. However, Eve refuses to abort because she believes that life is sacred, so House and her debate the merits of abortion, as well as argue about philo- sophical concepts of God, life, suffering, and death. House hopes to persuade her to terminate the fetus. Eve eventually opens up to House about her rape, and ultimately receives an abortion prior to discharge. This case deals with two bioethical principles: respect for autonomy and informed consent. Dr. House properly informed Eve of her condition and all the medical options available. I personally do not agree with abortion, but believe woman have the right of autonomy over their own bodies. Dr. House did not coerce Eve, and he was not wrong for attempting to persuade and counsel her to have an abortion because the fetus that was product of rape and Eve was emotion- ally unstable due to her suicide attempt. House allowed Eve to give informed concert to have an abortion on her own. In second case, immunologist and diagnostic fellow, Dr. Allison Cameron, MD, must treat a homeless patient with terminal lung cancer. His condition is inoperable and he only has a few days to live. Dr. Cameron tries to make him as comfortable as possible and offers him pain medication. He declines because he thinks he is undeserving because he believes that he screwed up his life and wants someone to remember him. In addition, he has no family and friends and never had a decent job. Despite her eagerness to ease the pain of the homeless patient, Dr. Cameron immediately relents and hold back all medications to abide by her patient’s decision to die while suffering. At the end of the episode, the homeless patient dies. This case deals all four common bioethical principles: respect for autonomy, informed consent, justice, and beneficence and non-maleficence. Dr. Cameron abided by the principle of justice when she admitted the homeless patient to give him proper medical care knowing that he had no where to sleep and no money to pay for treatment. Moreover, Dr. Cameron made the right medical decision to not ad-

minister any medication; thus respecting the homeless patient’s choice not to be given any pain medication. She conformed to the principle of autonomy and informed consent because she in- formed the patient that is condition was terminal and inoperable allowing him to make an in- formed voluntary, rational decision, which she followed. Dr. Cameron violated the principle of non-maleficence by abiding by the patient’s wishes; nevertheless, she still made the right medical decision because giving the patent medication only would have minimized his suffering not pre- vent it due to the fact that he was already terminally ill and going to died regardless. It is better that he die according to his wishes than to die in vain because his requests were denied. As I look to become a clinician, it is important to constantly weigh out pro and cons of an action to the overall importance, especially in situational call of life versus death decisions. Not all the principles of bioethics and be observed in every case. In addition as a practicing clinician, there will be medical treatments that you may not morally agree with, but must always give the patient all the medical options available in order for them to give an informed consent. Further- more, bioethics provide guidelines but there are always situational exceptions.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version