I need to create a situation/scenario where something seemed ethical at first, but a closer look into the issue revealed otherwise. For instance, someone can agree that children vaccination is ethically correct because it avoids transmission of diseases and prevent health complications. But a second thought would reveal that is not that ethically correct for every parent as some prefer not to vaccinate their kids. I would greatly appreciate any inputs in such a switch regarding ethics. Thanks a lot!
I suppose you could write about vaccination, but I don't think the proposed situation you mention is the kind of situation your instructor wants you to consider. Based on your idea, anything could be "unethical" - you know? Vaccines themselves (or the idea of vaccination programs) don't become unethical based on an individual's rejection of them.
Here's a more classic example of what I think is being asked (and by the way a discussion of this situation took place here on AN not too long ago):
Someone wants to withhold information from a patient, with good intentions, because they care about the patient
Last edit by JKL33 on Jan 4
Thanks for the link. We are doing a module regarding how mandoatory hiv-aids testing on pregnant women looks ethically correct as it prevents spread of infection to the fetus and early treatment of the mother. However, if you look deeper, you can also notice that the mother right for autonomy is not being respected as she wishes not to be tested fearing her family abandonment and discrimination. So the scenario to be created has to include a situation that at first looks ethical but when looked more in detail, it has flaws and it doesn't look that ethical anymore.
Well if you're talking solely about autonomy then I guess anything mandatory could be considered unethical.
Many, many ethical issues (including the subject in the link provided) have to do with things that might appear good but have another side that isn't so good which shows the original thought to be unethical.
How about something I have encountered in psych? Medication administration without patient knowledge or consent--putting medication in food/drink. We don't do it often, and we always obtain family or judicial consent, but I still feel a little uneasy giving medications to people without their knowledge. Meds have side effects, and I strongly feel people should know what they are taking and the possible side effects/long-term effects, but if they don't know we're giving them these meds then of course they don't know about those side effects. That seems a little wrong to me. I know we need to treat them, but the right to refuse treatment seems rather basic to me.
Immunization as an ethical issue seems to me something that should come down on the compulsory side, much as I hate to say it. If too many parents opt out, herd immunity suffers and one sick child can infect many others--it's not fair to allow that kind of irresponsibility. However, medicating people against their will is much more of an ethical dilemma--can we really force treatment on people who don't want to be treated for mental illnesses they don't believe they have? Just a thought.
Yeah...any situation that a patient has diminished capacity (cognition) and people are making decisions that might be in the best interest of the patient, but against that persons wishes. Happens a lottttttt.
Pediatrics! Like anti-vaxxers unwilling to vaccinate their children. Or parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses who deny life-saving blood transfusions for their child. Pediatrics and medical ethics often deal with issues of consent and human rights.
We just talked about the ethics of sterilization of prisoners in exchange for a reduced sentence. It was an interesting discussion!
Must Read Topics