AL FINAL PHI
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Ottawa *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1370
Subject
Medicine
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by ChiefTitaniumSalamander35
Ashlie Leclerc
300287965
PART A:
1.
The desert idea about justice means that people should get rewards or punishments based on
what they do or achieve, not just because they are lucky or have a high status in society. The
term means that individuals should receive fair consequences for their own decisions and
behavior (desert is used as a derivative of deserve in this context). This way of thinking focuses
on being responsible for yourself and depending on yourself. There are a couple of objections to
this theory. Firstly, it is troublesome to determine what people really deserve. Deciding what an
individual genuinely deserves can be subjective and open to interpretation. Components such as
good fortune, natural abilities, and social benefits can affect a person's choices and results,
making it troublesome to decide what they really merit. In expansion, it can lead to cruel and
unbalanced disciplines. The desert theory can lead to disciplines that are unbalanced to the
offense committed. For example, an individual who commits a minor wrongdoing may get a
cruel discipline based on the conviction that they deserve it, instead of on the genuine harm
caused. Finally, it does not account for systemic treacheries. The desert theory places the
obligation for results exclusively on the person, without taking under consideration the effect of
bigger societal and systemic components such as poverty, discrimination, and inequality. Overall,
whereas the desert theory of justice has its merits, I believe it is not a good form of justice as it
can be restricted in its capacity to account for the complexities of human behavior and societal
components. A more nuanced approach to justice is fundamental, one that takes into
consideration both a person's duty and societal context. Reference
References used for inspiration: Young, Iris Marion, and Martha Nussbaum, Responsibility for
Justice, Oxford Political Philosophy (2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2011),
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392388.001.0001
2.
The rule "Worst first, first come, and hopeless second" is a principle utilized in triage situations
to prioritize medical treatment and distribute resources to patients based on the seriousness of
their condition. According to this principle, the most critically sick or harmed patients are given
the upper most priority for treatment and resources, regardless of the order in which they
arrived at the healthcare facility. This is because their condition poses the most prominent risk to
their survival and requires quick medical attention. The following priority is given to patients
who arrived first but have less serious conditions, then followed by those who have a small
chance of survival or whose condition is considered hopeless, even if given treatment. While this
principle provides a clear framework for prioritizing medical treatment, it can moreover be
problematic in a few regards. One potential issue is that it may not always be clear which
patients are the foremost critically sick or harmed, as there can be a significant variety in side
effects and seriousness even within the same category of sickness or injury. Another concern is
that this principle may not account for the potential for recuperation or the effect of treatment
on patient outcomes. In a few cases, patients who show up to be in a hopeless condition may
react well to treatment and recuperate completely, whereas others who are at first steady may
fall apart quickly without immediate medical assistance.
3.
The sympathy rule is a regulation that would not permit healthcare providers to help their
relatives and/or friends in any way they like. However, in extreme situations, for example life and
death situations, it would permit them to give priority to their relatives and/or friends if needed.
The sympathy rule can be considered a good rule for a few reasons. To start off, it advances
reasonable and fair treatment. By disallowing healthcare providers from giving special treatment
to their friends and family members, the rule helps to guarantee that all patients are treated
equally and without bias. This will improve the quality of care given and advance trust within the
healthcare system. In addition, it maintains professional ethics, healthcare providers are bound
by professional morals to provide the finest possible care to all patients, regardless of their
personal relationship. The sympathy rule strengthens this ethical commitment and guarantees
that healthcare providers prioritize patient care over individual interests. Finally, it recognizes
human compassion. In certain uncommon circumstances, such as life and death circumstances,
healthcare providers may have a strong desire to help their loved ones. The sympathy rule
recognizes this compassion and permits for some flexibility in prioritizing their cherished ones'
needs, while still maintaining the commitment to provide reasonable and equal care to all
patients.
References used for inspiration: American Medical Association. (2016). Code of Medical Ethics
Opinion 1.2.2: Treating Self or Family,
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-
ethics-chapter-1.pdf,
5.
Doubts on vaccine safety arose from a fraudulent article by English physician Andrew
Wakefield. Wakefield suggested a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism, but
other researchers found no evidence. There were several flaws in his research as there
was a low sample size of only 12 children and it relied on reports from parents. Many
vaccines are given before signs of autism have even showed up which make people
correlate the two together when there is no connection at all. There have been immense
amounts of different research to find evidence of vaccine causing autism, but every
research concludes in the same result that there is no correlation or evidence of vaccine
causing autism. Not only has there been many experiments proving there are no
relations between the two, but the timeline of autism and vaccines do not align. Autism
has been a diagnosis seen about 20 years before the vaccine for measles, rubella and
mumps were introduced (which was the original vaccine that was supposedly linked to
autism). Lastly, autism has been linked as a strong genetic component. It has been
discovered that autism has a high heritability rate which suggests that autism is largely
determined by someone's genes proving once again that vaccines are not linked to
autism.
References used for inspiration: Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines
are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort
studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629.
PART B:
1.
Whether or not vaccines should be mandatory has been a continuous controversial issue. Those
who are for the individual rights would argue that two pros would be personal autonomy and
respect for personal beliefs and values, while those who are against this would argue they need
to get vaccinated for public health and obligations to society. To begin with the pro individual
rights, personal autonomy is the most compelling argument in favour of the anti-vaxxers stance
as it sustains personal autonomy. People have the right to make their own choices in regard to
their own health, which mandatory vaccines would disregard that right. Some individuals
perceive the choice of vaccination as a serious personal decision that they should make on their
own without the influence or coercion from the government. The other argument in favour for
the right to refuse vaccines for individual rights would be respect for personal beliefs and values.
Some individuals may have certain beliefs or values which do not agree and conflict with the
view of vaccination. Whether it be religious or even philosophical, they may believe that
alternating to a natural immunity is greater than a vaccine. They expect to be able to keep their
beliefs and not be forced to go against their own personal values. They should be able to decide
what is appropriate from their own view and have that decision respected. An argument for the
cons of the individual rights would be the serious implications for public health. One of the most
effective ways to prevent diseases from spreading are vaccines. When a large portion of the
population is vaccinated, it creates herd immunity which is the most ideal as it protects
everyone, including those who are not vaccinated. However, if a large population denies to take
the vaccines, it can lead to outbreaks and faster spreading of a disease that can put those who
are vulnerable at significant risk. Another argument against the right to refuse vaccination is the
obligations to society that individuals have to protect the health and wellbeing of others. Those
who refuse to vaccinate put others at risk, especially those who cannot get vaccinated due to
medical reasons. Individuals have a responsibility to contribute themselves to aid in
improvement and advancement for the greater good. In conclusion, it is difficult to say which is
in the right as there are several other pros and cons towards the topic of individual rights and it
is a debate that is continuous.
3.
The distribution of scarce medical resources is a complex ethical issue that requires much
cautious consideration of varied factors. In my opinion. Doctors, nurses, and other health care
providers should not depend on any non-medical criteria when making choices around who gets
these resources. Choices should instead be based only on medical criteria, such as the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
seriousness of the patient's condition and the probability of recovery. There are a few reasons
why non-medical criteria should not be used within the distribution of scarce medical resources.
Firstly, it is critical to guarantee that medical decisions are made exclusively based on clinical
need, instead of other components such as popularity, wealth, or political power. All patients
should be given the same opportunities to get life-saving treatments regardless of their
background or position in society; every individual should have equal rights. Furthermore, it is
biased and discriminatory to have non-medical criteria in medical decision-making. An example
would be if doctors were permitted to consider a patient's age or race when choosing who
should get scarce medical resources, this may result in unjustifiable treatment such as sexism
and racism of certain people or groups. This would be extremely unethical and unacceptable.
Thirdly, depending on non-medical criteria may weaken trust within the healthcare system. If
patients accept that their access to medical resources is being decided by components other
than medical need, they may end up doubtful of the healthcare system and less willing to look
for treatment when they require it. This may have profound consequences for public health.
Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that healthcare providers have a obligation to act within
the best interests of their patients. This implies making choices based solely on medical criteria
which prioritize the patient's needs over other considerations. All personal beliefs must be put
aside as healing and saving a patient is the only thing a health care professional should think of.
In conclusion, whereas the distribution of scarce medical resources could be a difficult and
sometimes overbearing task, depending on non-medical criteria is not the solution. Choices
around who gets medical resources should be based exclusively on medical criteria, to guarantee
that all patients are treated equally and fairly, and that healthcare providers act within the best
interests of their patients.
4.
I disagree that Canada should adopt a more tolerant and supportive view of alternative
medicine, and that governments should willing to fund many of them. First, rather than scientific
research, alternative medicine is highly based on anecdotal evidence. Although some alternative
therapies may show results or have benefits, there is no proof of any effectiveness the many
alternative treatments may give. Publicly funding alternative medicine would take away money
from the evidence-based medications or medical practices that have been tested and proven to
work. This can cause many issues as it could have a negative impact on the health of Canadians
due to less effective resources.
Second, alternative medicine practitioners and conventional
medical professionals are not held to the same standards. Alternative medicine does not have
formal training or certification whereas conventional medical professionals go through extensive
training and are monitored. There is less regulation for the alternative medicine practitioners
which means that there is a possibility of receiving unsafe or ineffective care to which then the
public funds would be misused (Berman). Third, having public funding going towards alternative
medicine could create an unequal healthcare system. If only some of the alternative medicine is
funded, patients who cannot afford to pay for the others that are not funded are left without
access to care. This would further deepen the issue of health costs as some individuals already
have issues affording conventional medicine. Splitting the funding would make both alternative
and conventional medicine have low fundings making those who are less fortunate struggle even
more to gain health care. This would lead to an unfair situation where only those who have
money have access to medications and therapies. Lastly, it is given the impression that
alternative medicine is natural and safe but that is not always true. If certain alternative
medicines are being used instead of evidence-based treatments, it can lead to serious effects on
an individual's health. If alternative medicine is publicly funded, it would persuade Canadians
into thinking that the government agrees on the safeness and effectiveness of these therapies
when it is not necessarily true. This could break public trust in the healthcare system and put
patients at risk. In conclusion, public funding should not go towards alternative medicines even if
they may offer some benefits. There is a lack of scientific evidence, inconsistent regulation,
unequal access, and risk of harm which are all strong reasons as to why experts and the
government would and should not fund alternative medicine in Canada. It is important to
prioritize the practices that are evidence-based and proved to work as well as to fund areas of
greatest need to ensure safety and health to all Canadians.
References used: Berman, B. M., Singh, B. K., Lao, L., Langenberg, P., Li, H., Hadhazy, V., & Bareta, J.
(1995). Physicians’ attitudes toward complementary or alternative medicine: a regional survey. The
Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 8(5), 361-366.