Internal Morality of Medicine - Coursework Example

Internal morality of medicine Introduction If one takes a close look at the society that is formed by humans, one will be able to see that the concept of ethics plays an extremely important role in it. Indeed, the influence that this notion has can be traced virtually in every aspect of social life. Medicine is no exception. Thus, the connection between medicine and ethics has been a topic of debates for a considerable period of people. There are two opposite points of view on it. On the one has, there are those who argue the necessity to identify internal morality of medicine, suggesting that there are might be situations when physician might refrain from actions that are not considered to be immortal by the conventional morality. On the other hand, there is a completely different point of view. This paper will argue that the concept of internal morality of medicine is wrong. Arguments in support There are several arguments that one might engage while supporting this point of view. First of all, it is beyond any doubt that medicine, just like any other activity that is performed by people, can be found within the framework of the social environment (Wicclair 49). In other words, this is not some kind of a unique phenomenon that was able to develop itself independently, but it is a logical continuation of the evolution of the society, manifestation of human will. If the role of ethics is so significant in the society in general, than it should be projected on medical practice as well, not allowing the latter develop some kind of a internal analogue which might contradict with its conventional counterpart. Another point that should be mentioned is that the outcome of any medical action is to bring benefit to the people. Indeed, beneficience is one of the primary principles of medical ethics which is also supported by another principle – non malificence. So, it is logical to expect medicine do good to the people. Moreover, ethics is largely considered to be a discipline that is designed to identity right and wrong in difficult situations; so, if these two areas of social life work together, they are likely to bring rather positive outcomes. Contrary to that, if the idea of internal morality of medicine is recognizes, it is likely to serve as an obstacle on the way of their fruitful collaboration. That is why it is beyond any doubt that medicine should be seen as an activity which is guided by conventional ethics and does not rely on other, internal analogue since they would undermine the productivity of their interaction. Finally, one should also take a close look at the major actors that are involved in the situations. While the objects of medical practice have already been discussion, the analysis might benefit from further investigation of the subject. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that medicine is practiced by people. In spite of the fact that they might possess special knowledge, from legal, moral as well as social point of view they should be regarded as ordinary citizens. Therefore, the profession that they took up does not provide them with an excuse not to follow the conventional ethics or follow the internal code of conduct. Indeed, the stability of the social environment largely rests on the ability of every citizens within it to follow the agreed set of rule. Arguments against As it has been stated in the beginning, there is a completely opposite point of view on the issue of internal morality of medicine. In order to make the discussion objective, it may be particularly important to engage the ideas of those who would not agree with the thesis of this paper. Thus, these people would probably suggest that the one size fits all ideology that is being promoted by those who reject internal morality of medicine is a fallacious approach because it fails to acknowledge the peculiarities of this area of social life. Indeed, medicine can hardly be compared to any other activity as it deals with the primary matters of life and death, making significance of every action rather big and cost of a mistake quite high. That is why the traditional ambiguity that is characteristic to conventional ethics with its numerous theories is devastating for medicine which is in need of its internal morality that is specifically designed to reflect the difficult situations that physicians might encounter. Secondly, many proponents of the concept in question would point out that there are might be cases when positive results might be achieved with the help of means that violate the conventional rule of morality. For example, a doctor might lie to a patient in order to calm one down in case of a terminal disease. In addition to that, a doctor might fail to inform the relatives about such a disease if the patients is willing do to so. Finally, the very concept of euthanasia is quite a controversial one: the society generally condemns killing, but that may be exactly what the patient wants. Finally, those in favor of internal morality of medicine would point out that doctors should not be seen as ordinary people. Throughout the history they performed different role that were of high significance to other citizens and, therefore, acquired a special status among them (Pellegrino 75). Indeed, medical practice is not a set of actions that are performed in particular conditions, but rather an art of curing a disease and a peculiar ability to restore harmony in one’s body. In other words, unlike in many other professions, training does not necessarily bring the positive results, it is mastery, zeal and devotion that are responsible for success. That is why by comparing physicians to ordinary people, the society diminishes exceptional ability of the former. Rebuttal of arguments against There is no doubt that the points which are made by the people who support the idea of internal morality of medicine are logical and make sense. However, there are several points that these people fail to recognize. To begin with, while medicine is seen by them as somewhat exceptional area of human activity, there is no doubt that it is well integrated into the society and is closely connected to it. That is why it is not logical to talk about some kind of independence when it comes to application of ethics as the latter is often regarded as a common platform that unites different people into one unified social environment. Another important idea that should be taken into account is the relationship between ends and means. Indeed, sometimes people might ask physicians to perform actions that are not rational; however, that should not be seen as an excuse to violate the conventional rules of ethics (Paola 130). It is quite understandable that the outcome of medical practice is important. However, if a positive result is achieved in a manner that is incompatible with the moral code of a patient, then the latter is not likely to be satisfied. For example, life of a person may be saved by organ transplantation, but the patients condemned this practice for various reasons while being in good health condition. If a doctor save one’s life with the help of organ transplantation and the person finds it out, the latter will feel bad as the fundamental principles of morality one has been adhering to were violated. Finally, one should also note that the idea of exceptional figure of a doctor might be an exaggeration. There is no doubt that training does leave a certain trace on the individuality of a person, allowing one to reevaluate several aspect of one’s world view; in addition to that medical training does make one’s outlook wider. However, it does not change the person significantly. In other words, the ability to understand body of a human better and introduce certain changes into it does not make a doctor a being that is superior to conventional ethics and morality. This means, despite all the knowledge and abilities, a doctor still remains to be a citizens that should obey the rules that the majority of the society agreed upon. Conclusion Having examined all the arguments that were expressed in the paragraph above, one might come up with the following conclusion: the concept of internal morality of medicine should be dismissed as a fallacious one. There are several reasons for that. First of all, medicine is a part of social life and should be guided by ethics accordingly. Secondly, the ultimate goal of medicine is to bring positive results for the people and only ethics can truly determine what is right and wrong; so, the presence of an internal analogue will corrupt such interaction. Finally, medical practice is performed by people who should be seen as ordinary people despite their knowledge and abilities. It is obvious that there will be those who oppose such point of view; however, the arguments that they might bring feature fallacious elements which undermines the validity of the claims that are made by them. Works Cited Paola, Frederick A. Medical Ethics and Humanities. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2010. Print. Pellegrino, Edmund D. The Health Care Professional as Friend and Healer. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2000. Print. Wicclair, Mark R. Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print. Read More