Bioethics was started in a setting described by moral pluralism and shifting thoughts regarding the idea of morality (Cahill, 2017, p.369). As it was before, it is still a push to build up an arrangement of standards and a technique for moral decision making that applies to everyone, paying little heed to one's religion or philosophy (Cahill, 2017, p.369). Given its main goal to convey a common profound quality to pharmaceutical and the life sciences - where moral inquiries concerning the limits and significance of life proliferate (Cahill, 2017, p.369) - bioethics gets itself continually knocking up against religion. These experiences are challenging since they feature a basic pressure in the statutes of bioethics. Foundational to the field is respect for persons. It is a statute that requests that religious convictions not be dismissed as only accumulations of myths. In the meantime, the bioethical statute of universalism makes it difficult to incorporate religion as a genuine component in moral decision making (Cahill, 2017, p.369). This one of a kind factor makes bioethics a perfect field to investigate how the consecrated and the secular experience each other in current medicine or medical research. The intriguing part is always the point where bioethics catches up on against religion like it is in this case study.
Pressing Issues in This Case Study
Living donor kidney transplantation, physician-patient relationship, treatment refusal, patient autonomy and religious beliefs are the key pressing issues in this case study. The moral issues of living donor kidney transplantation, which is the treatment of decision for patients with end-stage renal failure, are the focal point of exceptional discussion. A portion of those issues are identified with the safety of the operation of the benefactor, and others are identified with the inspiration of the donor, the way to deal with the donor, assessment of the donor, donation by strangers, the commercialization of donations and the acceptance of minors as donors (Saenz, 2015, p.79). In this case, the potential donor is Samuel. Samuel is a minor, but he is eyed as the potential donor to save his brother. The absence of a clear agreement concerning these issues brings about differences in practice, among nations as well as among transplant centers. It is trusted that after an open discussion, concurrence on certain accepted standards can be achieved (Saenz, 2015, p.82). Such an agreement would secure potential donors and recipients and would guarantee the eventual fate of living donor kidney transplantation like in James’ case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In as much as organ transplantation is one of the outstanding medical achievements of the twentieth century, the revelation of powerful immunosuppressive medications in the late 1970s (Saenz, 2015, p.86) was an essential advance towards expanding the achievement rate of organ transplants. Along these lines, it has been made ready for organ transplantation to be a routine undertaking in the twenty-first century. Religions have also had their say on this issue as time goes by. The present prevalence of organ transplantation was to find in an as a recently published study which gathered overall information on living kidney transplantation (Saenz, 2015, p.91). Research indicated consistent ascent of living kidney transplantation in many areas of the world (Saenz, 2015, p.91).
At the point when a medicinal treatment, similar to organ transplantation, turns out to be so impressive and manages to make great progress rates in enhancing the quality of patients' lives globally, then fascinating moral questions will be raised instantly (Saenz, 2015, p.95). The principle theory of this topical issue is that the moral structure of organ transplantation ought to be as far reaching as could reasonably be expected and along these lines ought not to be limited to the regular arrangement of moral inquiries identified with the donor-recipient relationship. The question, however, remains what Mike’s feelings would be if Samuel’s donated kidney ultimately did not succeed to save James’ life or at least to improve its quality.
Physician’s role in Mike’s Decisions
Medical studies are starting to show how deep religion and spirituality can add to the adapting methodologies of numerous patients with serious, chronic, and terminal illnesses (Savarino, 2017, p.170). The moral aspect of doctor consideration regarding the profound and religious measurements of patients' encounters of ailment require survey and discussion. In this case, should the physician discuss spiritual issues with Mike? What are the boundaries between the physician and Mike’s family? The answers to these questions are debatable depending on how much Mike holds on to his faith. However, Mike will have to make most of the vital decisions together with his family and should only depend on the physician partly for advice.
In most cases, patients put their trust in doctors and medical caretakers to administer to them ethically and compassionately (Savarino, 2017, p172). Doctors have an ethical commitment to satisfy that part appropriately. In spite of the fact that the dominant part of Americans is Christians, doctors multicultural and secular environment has made it harder to keep up an all-inclusive feeling of objective morality (Savarino, 2017, p.175). Consistent agreement on moral issues amongst doctors and patients is not generally conceivable in our pluralistic culture (Savarino, 2017, p179). It is basic to incorporate religious convictions when one acquires the social history keeping in mind the end goal to identify with the patient. In this case, the physician would only advice but will not play a major role in finalizing Mike's decisions.
While enthusiasm for the medical ethics is as old as the field itself, bioethics is a generally late field of inquiry and practice. There are diverse records of the conditions that produced the move from medical morals to bioethics, yet basic to all is a concern with the pointless suffering of research subjects and patients. These narratives reference the unsafe examinations directed on people without their assent amid World War II (Savarino, 2017, p181), when kidney dialysis was new and accessible just to a couple (Savarino, 2017). The conclusion of this argument directs Mike to end James’ suffering by use of any means possible, and should not only consider his religious beliefs.
It is, indeed, reasonable to say those bioethics was started because of this profound concern with human suffering. On the contrary, the field of medicine has spent negligible energy on response to patients’ suffering (Savarino, 2017, p.178). As a common, sound undertaking, bioethics opposes the religious. However, strangely, in its endeavors to set up its place in solution and the life sciences, bioethics calls on proselytizing strategies usually associated with religious missionizing (Savarino, 2017, p.182).
Christian Narrative of Treatment Refusal, Patient Autonomy and Organ Donation
Regarding treatment refusal, as Christians, we trust that human life is a blessing from God and that all people are responsible before God for their lives. This responsibility incorporates choices to acknowledge or reject treatment.
Regarding patient autonomy, individual self-determination is very esteemed in our American custom, and which is all well and good. Patients ought to have the privilege to accept or decline treatment or enable the normal course of occasions to take place. It is worth acknowledging that a person respects patient autonomy as long as we live incongruity with the main standard of the ethical law - the sacredness of life. Defenders of euthanasia place patient autonomy as the most elevated guiding principle (Vincenti et al., 2016, p.335), even over regard for the sacredness of life. They contend that the patient ought to have a privilege to pick demise as opposed to confronting a terrible and agonizing terminal ailment (Nair-Collins, Green, and Sutin, 2015, p.302). The problem with this issue is that self-assurance is the sole guiding rule hence why should they feel privileged to pick demise for anybody. In James' case, this would not apply because there is an option of organ donation.
The comprehension of organ donation as sacrifice depends on the recognition of the circumstances within which the organ is donated in Mike's case; his son was almost ding if he did not act. This is sufficiently clear in instances of living donors, cases in which the living donors damage themselves to give a kidney, a lung, or a projection of the liver to another. Notwithstanding, the hard-created nature of the donation is regularly overlooked in instances of donations from the dead (Nair-Collins, Green, and Sutin, 2015, p.298). A few people assume cadaveric donation is an ideal sacrifice in a paradoxical sense of that term. The donor is all things considered, dead. However, this view neglects to think about the body as an image, or to consider the relationship of the dead to the living – particularly to the person’s family, who are routinely requested to approve the donation (Nair-Collins, Green, and Sutin, 2015, p.300). However, in this case, the donor would be a living minor who, seemingly, is the only potential donor in Mike’s family, and maybe they would opt for a cadaveric donation if the situation would allow.
Trusting God Amid Sicknesses
It is correct to trust and believe in God in health or sickness. Christian doctors and health specialists should help patients, families and pastorate in settling on choices inside the structure of patients' religious beliefs and faith. A patient may deny treatment that disregards his or her ethical qualities or religious convictions (Vincenti et al., 2016, p.338). However, the privilege to deny treatment is constrained by the harm it might cause to innocent people. For Mike, physical demise need not be opposed no matter what. In specific conditions, medicinal treatment delays agony and suffering and postpones the time that a person will die. It might then be proper for a patient with good decision-making ability to decline medicinal intercessions. Mike's choice ought to be made after astute thought of his or her duties to God, family, and others. At the point when the patient denies life-drawing out treatment, doctors will respect that decision and sympathetically support Mike’s medical, social and religious needs.
Conclusion
The general summary of this topical issue is that organ transplantation is an exceptionally confounded issue from a moral point of view and consequently can't be lessened to one single moral value. For example, the honorable want to help patients who need organ transplantation by making donated organs accessible does not legitimize disregarding other moral qualities. For example, objectivity in communications with Mike and his family commands for Mike's consent, provision of psychological care for Mike and his family whenever there is a need and also doing justice to the religious element of Mike and his family. Neglecting such moral qualities can be counterproductive in the long run since potential donors may lose their trust in the entire medical framework and in this way decline to give their organs later on (Vincenti et al., 2016, p.343). There is need of increased research here by including religious (sub)groups and methodically examining minor and living donors alongside religious beliefs with a specific end goal to comprehend the state of minds of all involved parties better.
References
Cahill, L. S. (2017). Public Theology and Bioethics. A Companion to Public Theology , 369.
Nair-Collins, M., Green, S. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2015). Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation. Journal of medical ethics , 41 (4), 297-302.
Saenz, V. (2015). Inquiry in Bioethics and the Philosophy of Medicine: Organ Donation, Defining Death, and Fairness in Distribution. Journal of Medical Philosophy , 40(3), 77-263.
Savarino, L. (2017). Moral Pluralism and Christian Bioethics: On HT Engelhardt Jr.’s After God. Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality , 23 (2), 169-182.
Vincenti, F., Rostaing, L., Grinyo, J., Rice, K., Steinberg, S., Gaite, L., ... & Meier-Kriesche, H. U. (2016). Belatacept and long-term outcomes in kidney transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine , 374 (4), 333-343.
