Human Dignity in Healthcare - Essay Example

“Human Dignity” The Hippocratic Oath is a binding document that s back to the 5th century that doctors swear to ensure that, they respect the human dignity of the patients they treat and always treat them to their level best. In addition, the doctor should uphold the patients’ privacy and uphold the principle of “do not harm”. This essay seeks to examine the extent to this advanced medical procedures present ethical challenges and whether medicine can be limited by ethical considerations to render such procedures immoral. In addition, the essay shall establish the appropriate time for medicine to intervene. All these will be considered in line with the Hippocratic Oath, which declares that doctors should not harm in a bid to preserve human dignity. The two medical cases considered in this study exhibit advanced level of medication, which begins with experimentation. In the case of Mario, who suffers from mental illness and having undergone over 40 medical examinations and pharmacologist practices, he is left with only one option of advanced medical experimentation. Slater (235) quotes that “He wanted a shot at the ordinary, a lawn he might mow just once a week”. This was the neural implant. From the outset, the medical implant Mario was ready to undergo appears to be risky and unethical due to the nature of the operation and the uncertainty attributed to the whole process. This tells it all that, it is an experiment whose results are unpredictable. Mario puts a tattoo of a baby on the bicep; this implies that, the experiment was too risky that the probability is almost one. If this is the case then the Hippocratic Oath that declares that the doctors should not harm the patients is contravened upon the taking place of this operation. It is ethically wrong for the humans to be used as tools for experiment. In the event that, humans are used for experimentation purposes, the aspect of sanctity of life is disrespected. In essence, the advanced medical procedures like the one Mario underwent, despite its success, undermines the ethical challenges relative to the sanctity of life. We consider the procedure for in-depth understanding. The procedure that saw Mario gain his normal psychiatric state involved drilling through the bone to make two burr holes on both sides of the skull. Then followed by the placement of the implant with a threaded precision of two 1.27 millimetre wire, through which the iridium electrodes were strung. Slater (238) quotes that “As it is impossible to use animal testing to gauge whether or not DBS can treat depression and anxiety, the only guinea pigs available are people like Mario”. This is because the process is intensive and traumatising and this poses the question on the extent to which medicine should overreach in a bid to save lives. This medical procedure can be best described as an experiment on a guinea pig, which is Mario (Slater, 234). On the other hand, the technology that saves Molly is groundbreaking in the world history. Embryonic research and technology used in this case, indicates that humans can do everything to save life, Belkin (17) quotes that “we know people can do anything to save their child” Molly is suffering from Fanconi Anaemia, which is attributed to the heart. Molly underwent a bone marrow transplant, which obliterates the flawed immune system and then substituted with a donated one. This process is fatal since the cells get fragile and crumbled due to the chemotherapy and radiation that is done to clear way for the actual transplant (Belkin, 6). It is evident that both the mental implant for Mario and the bone marrow transplant for Molly represents technologically advanced medical practices which brings poses questions on medical practice relative to ethical attributes. The question that lacks a feedback in the case of Molly is whether it is ethical for an individual to be born to save another person’s life through mutational bone marrow transplants. In the case of the newborn, it is unethical to his/her understanding that; he/she was born to be used as a spare part for some one to be alive (Belkin, 5). However, in the case of the medics and the individuals whose life is saved, it is ethical. Belkin (17) quotes that “we know people can do anything to save their child”. This situation of life saving using advanced technology in medicine is practically posing far-reaching challenges in ethical considerations when handling certain critical medical cases like those of Mario and Molly. This extent cannot be controlled since the world has switched to technology and majority of the world’s population has trusted its uses and has undermined the human dignity and the sanctity of life. For instance, the confidence exhibited by Mario, after the neural implant indicates that, in cases of despair, technology comes in to save life. In Slater (239), Mario quotes that “I felt a strange sadness go all through me...after a few taps, the sadness went away” This is an indication that there is hope with technology. This belief is in the mind of people and the ethical considerations initially defined medical practice are no more critical, since individuals with severe cases like Mario and Molly are ready to undergo an experiment, however risky it might be in a bid to save their lives. For instance, Mario admits all the anticipated outcomes of the experiment including death (Slater, 236). This shows the readiness and extent to which advanced medical practices have engulfed the human mind despite the impending serious consequences. In essence, advanced medical practices have ruined the ethical foundations attributed to the Hippocratic Oath. This is because the urge for technological advancement in the medical field is unprecedented and has made majority of the patient to be under the doctor’s control after the surgery, “patients do not, cannot, fully understand, or appreciate, the degree to which, after the surgery, they will be under their doctor’s control” (Slater, 240) . Similarly, the patients with severe cases have no regrets on the outcomes of experiments done on them. This explains the reasons as to why experiments will continue being used and embraced by patients. This implies that the Hippocratic Oath does not have its initial value of “not harming patients” any more, and hence undermining of the human dignity and the sanctity of life. The possibility to have ethical considerations in a bid to render the technological advancement immoral is minimal because, such ethical considerations mean a lot to the medical field and the patients’ willingness to be treated. For instance, the two families Strongin-Goldbergs and the Nashes believe that the Fanconi disease can be treated by a bone marrow transplant, they quote “The best chance to save a Fanconi child is a bone-marrow transplant from a perfectly matched sibling donor” (Belkin, 2). In essence, the world has moved very fast to embrace, these medical advancements and a lot has been invested in the process and this implies that, the functionality of the ethical considerations intended to limit medical advancement will stop the research process in the medical field, consequently, the world will continue upholding the ancient medical approaches. In the case of the patients, the intended ethical considerations will limit their freedom to seek the advanced technological medical practices in a bid to save their lives (Belkin, 5). It is imperative to note that, in the two cases of both Mario and Molly, they present themselves voluntarily and they are ready to bear any consequence from the experiment. This tells us that, the patients themselves are ready to undergo such risky experiments in anticipation that, they will get well. This belief in technology poses a great challenge in the balance between advanced technology and ethical considerations, like the ethics poses a question “Is it wrong to breed a child for spare parts?” (Belkin, 2). In essence, ethical considerations functions less in cases of severe illness and this undermines the human dignity and the sanctity of life. In conclusion, Mario and Molly’s illness cases, gives insight to the level in which medical advancement attributed to the growing application of technology is used to save lives. In addition, the aspect of ethical considerations in line with the Hippocratic Oath, which declares that doctors should not harm faces a big contravention with the urge for medical advancement and the patients’ willingness to undergo such experiments. In essence, application of medical advancement has surpassed the ethical considerations and this has made the Hippocratic Oath less relevant. This undermines the human dignity and the sanctity of life. Work Cited Lisa Belkin. The Made-to-Order Saviour. The New York Times. Retrieved on 15 Nov 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/01/magazine/the-made-to-order-savior.html Lauren Slater. Who holds the Clicker? The Journal of EBSCO HOST Connection. November 2005, Volume 30:6, p. 62 Read More