Ethical Modernity

Tag: Philosophy

  • The Bioethical Principle of Justice

    The Bioethical Principle of Justice

    As someone who advocates for patient autonomy, I want to distinguish the importance of the principle of justice. In my modern perspective, when discussing justice with autonomous individuals, I often find that the ethical principle of justice can differ from the established justice system. An autonomous individual can question the judicial system and begin asking how justice is served. The autonomy of oneself and how one views oneself can determine how one views justice. This is why we have individuals who don’t recognize the judicial system as a fair branch of government and see their biases and the overall injustice. When we find the general population distrusting the judicial system, we begin to see an erosion of the system. We cannot let this happen since the justice system was in place for us – the people. As a society, we determine how justice can be served in our states and individual lives. We decide what is wrong and right, but without moral reasoning, we have less of a chance of having a fair society, where justice is for all. Advocating for justice without advocating for autonomy will keep the divide between the system and the people. Only a self-determined, autonomous individual can truly understand their need for the moral principle of justice. In their independence, they see justice as a core value of their human rights. These two principles are deeply intertwined.

    Autonomy determines whether internal and subjective moral justice is held or denied. This is why I advocate for the principle of autonomy in patient management. When applied appropriately, autonomy helps solve most ethical dilemmas and injustices. When the physician cooperates with a patient as an autonomous individual, we can resolve dilemmas quickly by respecting their dignity and achieve a positive outcome that will align with all principles, including justice. 

    Autonomy with trust enables us to achieve a more balanced outcome when applying bioethical principles. Patients who trust their physicians are more likely to follow treatment and recommendations, resulting in a more effective treatment plan and quicker results. Trusting the physician is the cornerstone of effective treatment. When we uphold the principles of justice, we regain trust in the healthcare system. This seems to be the fastest way to rebuild trust—through patient autonomy and active participation in care.

    To ensure justice for all within the healthcare system, I first define two distinct forms: the principle of justice for the individual and distributive justice.

    The principle of justice in bioethics emphasizes fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment of individuals. It ensures that healthcare resources are distributed fairly and that decisions are made without bias or favoritism. Justice also requires that conflicts of interest be avoided and that patient care decisions prioritize fairness over personal or institutional gain. On an individual level, this can be seen as providing access to treatment without bias. Justice can be genuinely achieved as the result of the cooperation of all bioethical principles. It is within the three prior principles that the principle of bioethical justice is served.

    When physicians engage with ethical principles in daily practice, the healthcare professional can achieve an individualized approach to their patients, which allows for reaching the bioethical principle of justice. When the practice is aimed at being non-maleficent and beneficial, and recognizes the patient’s dignity and autonomy, the principle of justice has most likely been addressed thoroughly. However, justice isn’t a concept that physicians are usually acquainted with daily. For one to think of justice as a concern, other principles, usually, have been violated.

    Distributive justice, on the other hand, is broader. It is a subset of justice that focuses on the equitable allocation of healthcare resources. It considers various principles for distribution, such as equality, need, effort, contribution, merit, and free-market exchanges. These principles are often combined to address challenges like allocating scarce resources (e.g., organ transplants or medications) and managing time for outpatient visits. Physicians are encouraged to uphold fairness despite external pressures and constraints when dealing with limited resources, but to do this properly, one must acknowledge individual justice, as one without the other does not exist. Distributive justice is the ethical consideration of the whole healthcare system. We achieve a fair society through distributive justice, where all needs are considered.

    Equality and equity are other terms used when discussing the ethical distribution of resources. Defining these concepts can help achieve the fair distribution of resources. Equity refers to fairness and justice in providing opportunities, resources, and treatment to individuals and groups, considering their unique needs, circumstances, and barriers. Unlike equality, which offers everyone the same resources or opportunities, equity acknowledges that different individuals may require varying levels of support to achieve the same outcomes or access the same benefits. Understanding this enables employees to make decisions on an individual level without the need for micromanagement from the administration. The more enlightened an individual is of their rights and responsibilities and is aware of their moral reasoning, the less there is a need to instruct, guide, or control their work process. This allows for autonomous individuals to contribute to distributive justice.

    Justice is crucial in formulating healthcare policies that address inequities within the healthcare system. This ensures an environment where physicians can practice all the fundamental principles of ethics. The goals include a fair distribution of resources and healthcare providers, ensuring equitable access to diagnostic and treatment availability, and a just allocation of finances within the healthcare system. Fairly distributing access to healthcare for all citizens is their constitutional and human right.

    When addressing complex moral situations, achieving justice for all can be challenging. Reaching a fair distribution of resources can seem more straightforward than attaining fair treatment of everyone individually. In my view, when we provide care with the individual’s justice in mind, we start to consider those who do not openly express their need for it. The caregiver becomes aware of the silent mistreatments that individuals can experience and/or are afraid to share, and the need for justice becomes a given. The protection of the vulnerable is the ultimate goal of the principle of Justice. This approach to patient management begins to provide individual justice to those who seek it and distributive justice to those who need it.

    Confidentiality, transparency, and informed consent are other principles that deserve attention and relate to the previously mentioned bioethical principles.

    Confidentiality is the backbone of the patient-physician relationship; based on this principle, we establish the foundation for trust. Physicians are obligated by the judicial system to uphold this principle, making it fundamental in dealing with ethical dilemmas. If this concept is breached, it becomes a matter of right or wrong. Confidentiality requires physicians to protect patient information and share it only in particular situations regulated by law, making this principle a cornerstone for any dispute in healthcare. 

    Transparency is an essential principle for respecting the principle of autonomy. Through transparency, an autonomous individual can give informed consent to healthcare providers to manage their health. Transparency is shown when applying informed consent by providing information about the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. When providing healthcare information, transparency that respects the dignity of the individual is essential for the principle of justice.

    Informed consent is to be given by an autonomous individual who is competent, fully informed of the required information about their health status, and voluntarily consents to procedures or management. This concept protects patients from malicious intent or non-beneficial management by allowing them to seek individual justice if their dignity is disrespected.

    These principles and their legal foundations are how we obtain the ethical justice our citizens deserve.

    Ethical principles are an indispensable component of healthcare, as they enable the effective and equitable functioning of healthcare services and help to regain the population’s respect. By adhering to these principles, physicians and others can balance the complex demands of medical, legal, and social considerations, ultimately serving the best interests of individuals and society. Ensuring ethical practice enhances the credibility and legitimacy of the healthcare system, upholding the fundamental values of human dignity and freedoms.

  • Inclusivity and Diversity

    Inclusivity and Diversity

    Using moral reasoning to grow communities and foster relationships begins with defining the terms often mentioned in social-political discourse or disability studies: inclusivity and diversity.

    I understand these terms better using the example of people integrating into established communities. In this example, an individual leaves their original community and, for any given reason, decides to leave their community or is interested in expanding their interests in other social settings.

    These individuals enter a community, and can either be welcomed or not by the group, which determines the success rate of the integration process. The integration process is when the individual adapts to the social environment established by the community members. The group of people decides whether the integration is successful.

    In an inclusive community, the group welcomes and supports the integration process as the individual becomes accustomed to social norms and traditions established by the members. Individuals interested in adapting to a new social group will seamlessly integrate into the inclusive community.

    An inclusive community welcomes new members who differ from the original social standards and norms, which brings diversity to the group. When integration is welcoming and the community is interested in keeping members, it will begin to adapt to the new members. This adaptation influences the group’s established standards, thus evolving as a community. These changes are diversity.

  • Faith and Moral Reasoning

    As our society advances, we begin to understand how ethical principles determine the quality of services. The more advanced we have become, the greater the need for ethical principles to be at the forefront of everyday interactions with professionals and community members.

    In my opinion, civilization’s new path is to partake in moral growth. As one begins to search within oneself for moral reasoning, they will find it necessary to start outwards, expressing their morality. It is a given that morality needs an external pursuit to gain a positive outcome from practicing moral reasoning. These external pursuits are the interactions an individual has in their everyday lives.

    If one is seeking morality, I think there are ways to achieve this. These are my ideas:

    A conscious decision to choose moral reasoning or faith.

    The first is the conscious path that a person takes; for instance, a professional may choose to practice using moral reasoning. This path, I see, is a path that responsible individuals decide to take. This is why, I believe, those who consciously choose to live a life of moral reasoning suggest their high virtue and honor. However, when one engages in morality only from a logical perspective, this can begin to wear out individuals with such issues as burnout and depression, as it takes cognitive energy to engage with moral reasoning based on logic. When this happens, the individual’s reasoning becomes filled with biases and prejudices that are difficult to manage, thus disrupting their moral reasoning. So I acknowledge the people in modern society who engage in morals for the betterment of themselves and society, as this is not an easy task. I believe these people play a massive role in humanity’s development and evolution.

    The second path is through faith. This path requires less energy, and many attest to the energy it gives in return. Faith is a concept so difficult to define yet so common in society that when discussed, the contradiction must be kept in mind, as this contradiction anchors faith to its role in morality. Those who live by faith choose moral reasoning, and moral reasoning nurtures the faith in one’s soul. Like a cycle, one contributes to the other and vice versa. Making this a cycle of morality and something one can find within oneself. No logical reasoning is necessary for faith since it escapes the reality of our world; this is where the energy is saved. One does not need to apply extra effort to have faith. It is a surrender of your soul to the magnificence of the outer world. Surrender can be something like acknowledging the universe’s weight and how insignificant a man can be in something much larger than themselves. It brings one to wish to be moral in their lives for the sake of their faith. One nurtures their faith with morality, and faith is stronger with morality expressed.

    No matter the path, the outcome will be the same: a better relationship with yourself, family, communities, and society. Creating a kinder world with compassionate leadership.

  • Non-maleficence in modern healthcare

    Non-maleficence in modern healthcare

    Primum non nocere. Do No Harm.

    The principle of nonmaleficence is widely considered the primary principle in bioethics. Without this fundamental principle, the other principles cannot hold. I go so far as to suggest that this principle can be regarded as a human quality – humanity’s innate desire to keep one another safe.  This principle is the driving factor for many professionals to choose healthcare. Providing care that positively impacts patients’ lives is precisely what most healthcare workers aspire to in their careers. Unfortunately, harm can occur in healthcare, even when procedures are performed correctly; however, damage and suffering are minimized by upholding the principle of non-maleficence. To ‘do no harm’ means to provide care that incorporates all other principles. So, to achieve the best patient outcomes, physicians strive to balance each principle. If physicians follow this approach, they adhere to moral reasoning and achieve long-lasting results that satisfy the patient’s reasoning towards their health.

    The non-maleficence principle is characterized by carefully balancing the benefits and burdens of treatments, avoiding inappropriately burdensome treatments while selecting the most beneficial course of action for the patient. Non-maleficence becomes particularly relevant in challenging end-of-life care decisions, such as withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, managing pain, and alleviating symptoms. Ethical dilemmas have arisen when discussing the contradictions between non-maleficence and autonomy or in public health discussions. Another interesting area of discussion is epistemic injustice.

    When discussing end-of-life care, the discussion of assisted dying begins. Assisted dying is the action taken by a physician that assists the patient in death. This can be seen as an injection; this would need a voluntary and informed consent for it to happen, and is being discussed among patients with terminal long-term chronic illness, or this can be the medical professional’s action to turn off equipment that keeps the patient alive. Either way, ethical end-of-life care is needed to respect the individual when performing such actions. In the cases of assisted dying, bioethicists argue that allowing terminally ill patients to choose a dignified death minimizes harm. In contrast, others believe it contradicts the traditional medical duty to avoid causing damage. In my opinion, assisted dying and the outcomes of our discussions and evaluation of our misfortunes are where we can learn how to manage the mysteries of our collective psyche. This involves recognizing the dying as individuals and giving them the autonomy to decide.

    As for epistemic injustice, this is a type of injustice that occurs when individuals are dismissed by healthcare providers even when the patient is willing to express their autonomy. In other words, when healthcare providers dismiss the patients’ experience and knowledge of their illness. This is relevant to chronically ill patients and the need to take their experiences seriously. The healthcare community should take these cases seriously, as the repercussions can undermine trust in the healthcare system. Since these patients seek healthcare services the most often, they can impact society’s trust in physicians by sharing their experiences with other community members. These patients have experience in healthcare that other members of society listen to, as they have more knowledge navigating the healthcare system. When they share their experiences with others, their complaints can ripple, affecting those they did not know they would. This can be viewed as a positive for patient advocacy groups and other community members fighting for more patient autonomy. However, on the other hand, this disruption can continue to erode the trust in the healthcare system, which ultimately causes more harm to the general population than to the individual level.

    Trust is the cornerstone of a well-functioning healthcare system and a necessary component of effective public health policy. In societies that lack trust in healthcare systems, individuals tend to regard public health as less critical, prioritizing their autonomy over the equitable distribution of resources for public health among the general population. This is seen in cases where vaccines are mandated. The patient’s autonomy is chosen over the well-being of the collective, which causes further injustice in the healthcare system. This is argued to contradict the principle of non-maleficence, and to an extent, I would agree. The public’s health must be considered when dealing with tightly situated populations. Historically, vaccines have been mandated and have had an incredible effect on the longevity and health of youth populations. Vaccines have been a saving grace for the global child mortality rate, nearly eradicating diseases that primarily affect children, and should be seen as an achievement for humanity [Vaccines have saved 150 million children over the last 50 years – Our World in Data]. Instead, we have propaganda and disinformation that have attacked these achievements, causing a snowball effect of mistrust towards physicians who promote vaccines on an individual level. Now, on a personal level, with the cases of vaccines, it is logical to allow autonomy to be used as the primary principle for decision-making. Still, in the cases of vaccines, the evidence outweighs the people’s concerns, and I would argue that, where possible, educating the patients is the best possible solution for this problem. But for the most part, the education of the general population is the government’s responsibility. As for the physician dealing with this ethical dilemma, the principle of non-harm is being held when vaccines are mandated, as non-maleficence is to ‘do no harm,’ and allowing vaccine-preventable diseases to spread causes harm.

    As someone who deeply believes democracy is truly understood and upheld by individuals who understand their autonomy, I pivot to explaining how autonomy is the guiding principle of bioethical discourse in a healthy society. Imbalances in bioethical discussion could be addressed with the principle of autonomy and their involvement in decision-making. However, there are healthcare situations that require physician to make decisions without the patient’s involvement, or otherwise the patient’s autonomy cannot be expressed. If the outcome of this care results in harm, the best course of action is to discuss the physician’s intentions when making decisions.

    This is where the doctrine (or principle) of double effect can be used in bioethical discourse.

    “The doctrine of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that caused serious harm, such as the death of a human being, resulting as a side effect when promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end” Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    The doctrine of double effect recognizes the decision-maker’s intention. This framework helps decide if beneficence was the leading principle in decision-making, even when the outcome was harmful. The doctrine of double effect emphasizes a distinction between causing moral harm as a side effect in pursuing a positive outcome and the cause of harm when pursuing an individual positive outcome. In other words, there is a difference when damage was done unintentionally in pursuing a positive outcome, and harm is the result of pursuing a positive outcome.

    The doctrine helps define the intention of the individual who caused harm and whether the result was for the sake of beneficence.

    Joseph Managan provided four conditions that need to be met to establish unintentional harm while pursuing a positive outcome.

    1. that the action in itself, from its very object, be good or at least indifferent;
    2. that the good effect and not the bad effect be intended;
    3. that the good effect is not produced by means of the bad effect;
    4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the bad effect;

    These conditions help determine whether an individual’s actions can be seen as good and, therefore, whether the harm done can be morally justified.

    The doctrine of the double effect is used in ethical discussions, Whether it is euthanasia and pain relief or abortion and hysterectomy, the doctrine allows for a humanistic approach to ethical cases. Focusing on the intention while reviewing ethical dilemmas allows the decision-maker to grow from their actions. This is part of an individual’s moral growth.

    Even so, I argue that this doctrine can be used to solve the dilemma that professionals face: an individualized approach vs. standardization

    Ethical dilemmas can happen when the standard approach to an individual does not lead to the intended positive outcome, leaving the patient and/or healthcare professional in an ethical dilemma. Since ethics heavily relies on the capability of moral reasoning, it is to be expected that there will be misjudgment and harm during an individual’s practice. Ethical reasoning is a complex skill involving years of practice and mistakes. To avoid discouraging professionals from applying moral reasoning to an individual approach, the Doctrine of the Double Effect can be used by the healthcare professional. 

    I’d like to argue that if the doctrine of double effect were integrated into a healthcare provider’s practice, they could mitigate the constant use of protocols. Although protocols are beneficial for the patient and their use has increased the quality of healthcare worldwide, there are discussions in the general population about the negative effects of protocols. When cases emerge and an ethical dilemma between beneficence and non-maleficence arises, it is easy to side with protocol, prioritizing caution over moral justice. Siding with the established system and not accounting for the patient’s welfare can not be viewed as a free pass from causing harm. On one side, with the safest route, ethical principles might not be the primary focus for healthcare workers, thus creating an imbalance in the system and disrupting the principle of justice. To find a middle ground in such ethical dilemmas, applying the doctrine helps determine the intention and, therefore, the moral reasoning behind an action.

  • Respecting Autonomy: A Path to Better Healthcare Outcomes

    Respecting Autonomy: A Path to Better Healthcare Outcomes

    An individual’s right to make decisions about their life, including their health [Article 27. Конституція України | від 28.06.1996 № 254к/96-ВР]. This right is granted to free and dignified individuals who recognize that they have the privilege of freedom and the responsibility for their health. It is these individuals who continue to serve the community despite their disabilities, and it is they who advance the progress of free thought. They deserve the respect that an autonomous and free individual has. Offering the right to make decisions on their behalf in situations where they cannot act is a form of respect and a demonstration of human kindness. I emphasize how autonomy is the principle that may be the solution to most of our ethical dilemmas. Dilemmas can be solved by including the individual, provided that they view themselves autonomously. It will then be easier to determine their opinion on treatment. Patients are the individuals who make up our communities, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and understood as autonomous beings capable of making informed decisions, or at least be guided into making a decision that will benefit them the most. In line with the other principles, autonomy becomes the center of the individual’s management, and ethical justice is then upheld. Physicians can guide their patients with non-maleficence in mind and beneficence in management, but ultimately, ethically, the individual’s autonomy decides the course of action.

    One of the first ethical dilemmas that arises from autonomy concerns situations where patients disagree with management. Their opinion on protocol might be biased and may stem from a misunderstanding of the function of protocols. However, in some cases, the use of protocols can be viewed as a form of oppression. If protocols are unfounded or unjustifiable, they become a reason for mistrust in the general population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, I observed a trend where a lack of protocol led to stress on the healthcare system, resulting in worse outcomes and higher mortality rates [Impact of COVID-19 on Canada’s Health Care Systems | CIHI.” Www.cihi.ca, www.cihi.ca/en/covid-19-resources/impact-of-covid-19-on-canadas-health-care-systems]. The more uninformed the system was, the harder it was to control the infection. However, as we progressed past the initial phase, the general population became concerned with the management of the healthcare system and the implementation of protocols as measures to combat the pandemic. As it stands today, I agree with most protocols put in place during lockdown, but I do understand the frustration that the population experienced. When it came to vaccines, these protocols were enforced and widely disapproved of [Dhivagaran, Thanansayan, Umaima Abbas, Fahad Butt, Luckshann Arunasalam, and Oswin Chang. 2021. “Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of COVID-19: Protocol for a Systematic Review.” Systematic Reviews 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01871-7]. The individual’s autonomy was not as a priority as I will argue for in other ethical dilemmas. In this case, the rights of autonomous individuals took a backseat to the pursuit of fair distribution of resources during crisis management.  However, on an individual level, our patient-physician relationship must uphold all principles of bioethics. When the general population mistrusts us, we face an uninformed backlash to policies that were reactive to a crisis.

    For us to have a functioning healthcare system that is respected and cherished, we must be the necessary change. Working in healthcare can feel like a conveyor of people, coming and going, and often, what seems to be the standard of treatment might not be what the patient would choose. The patient ends up dissatisfied, bitter, and annoyed, and begins to generalize all physicians. If the physician cannot grasp their autonomy and dignity, respecting others’ dignity and independence becomes a challenge. This is why ethical management is crucial for implementing and upholding ethical standards. It will otherwise take some time for each professional to come to terms with the ethics as integral to their treatment.  [Page, Katie. 2012. “The Four Principles: Can They Be Measured and Do They Predict Ethical Decision Making?” BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-10]

    Determining the values and wishes of our patients helps guide ethical decision-making and creates trusting environments for our patients. This principle is innate to those who view themselves as worthy of their individuality and life. Those who uphold democracy know that autonomy is key to freedom.

    Today, many find themselves fighting for these principles, both metaphorically and literally. We deserve to be seen as autonomous individuals and experience the freedom of self-determination.

  • The Role of Trust in Patient-Physician Relationships

    The Role of Trust in Patient-Physician Relationships

    In bioethics, principles guide clinical decision-making. Healthcare professionals apply these principles to provide the best care to their patients. Successfully applying ethics in professional practice is essential to achieving positive results in treatment planning.

    In a previous post, I had mentioned the interconnection between the mind and body and how the acknowledgment of the metaphysical, even if it is only for the patient, guides the physician into expanding their moral thinking. Accepting the possibility of something more than oneself can open the door to our moral compass. With an engaged moral compass in clinical discussions or decision-making, bioethics begins to guide the physician. Beauchamp and Childress proposed the fundamental principles of bioethics that physicians use daily in their practices [Principles of Biomedical Ethics: Marking Its Fortieth Anniversary – PubMed]. These principles—non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice — guide physicians to stay true to a moral compass in clinical practice.

    When bioethics guides clinicians’ decision-making, they ensure a stronger patient-physician relationship, where trust becomes the center of treatment. Patients who trust their physicians are more willing to follow treatment and recommendations, resulting in a more effective treatment plan and quicker results. Trusting the physician is the cornerstone of effective treatment.

    Only when trust is established will a patient be willing to, at least, listen to their healthcare provider. When we have established trust with our patient, that is when our work has meaning. Otherwise, consider it a consultation or walk-in service. No one—whether seeking information or not—needs to fulfill the physician’s recommendations, as the physician provides the initial information requests. It is the patient’s health; therefore, it is the patient’s autonomous right to decide whether to follow through with their health management. Healthcare professionals understand this as the principle of autonomy, which gives the patient authority over their health. This principle, the principle of autonomy, is the initial establishment of trust in the patient-physician relationship, since it is only by respecting the patient’s dignity that a successful engagement with the patient’s autonomy can be achieved.

    Since the physician has access to the information and holds a position of authority, it is their responsibility to establish a trusting patient-physician relationship. Patients can then begin to trust that their physician is non-maleficent and/or beneficent and has their best interests in mind.

    Physicians who utilize ethical principles to achieve higher-quality care ensure that the patient’s health is the primary concern of the caring physician. And when patients receive support from healthcare workers, they become more willing to take responsibility for their treatment.

    I believe that there is no conspiracy on the part of the healthcare system to exploit and keep citizens ill; the goal of the healthcare system is to prevent patients from staying sick for too long. It is a significant financial burden for patients to require long-term care. Cost reduction in healthcare can be achieved by establishing a more prophylactic approach to patient care. To achieve this, the focus would need to be on acquiring soft skills, such as moral reasoning, for physicians and healthcare workers. Patients need to listen to and trust basic prophylactic measures, which take time to show results, and start to move away from polypharmacological treatments. However, this will require rebuilding trust with patients. This result necessitates physicians’ motivation and effort to implement a gentler approach to patient management approach.

    Although I have already touched upon the principle of autonomy, other principles are equally important. These principles can be viewed as moral forces that pull on a personal internal perception of the situation. How they view their situation determines which force needs more of a ‘pull’ by the clinician, so to speak. These forces are the principles where autonomy is the only force the individual can control, so I advocate for patient autonomy. No one truly knows how the individual is experiencing their illness; only the individual themselves can determine this. However, by acknowledging and respecting the individual’s dignity and thus autonomy, the forces of beneficence and non-maleficence are truly used in the clinician’s decision-making. As for the principle of justice, justice is the outcome of the decision-making process. Justice is achieved when a balance is struck among all three principles.

  • The Importance of Ethical Standards in Healthcare

    The Importance of Ethical Standards in Healthcare

    Ethical standards and principles are the cornerstone of good-quality healthcare services. Through these standards, we can achieve a just future in our communities and families. Individuals expect to experience care that reflects modern ethical standards whenever they receive healthcare services. When accessing healthcare services, patients and their families trust that these principles will be reflected in their healthcare providers. It is through trust that the patients connect with their physicians, as it is this trust that enables us to achieve accurate diagnoses and develop successful treatment plans. When a patient has a poor experience with any healthcare professional, distrust increases, and they become less willing to trust subsequent professionals. The cycle of mistrust grows, and the healthcare system degrades over time, leaving everyone dissatisfied. The first to degrade in an unethical healthcare system is the patient-physician relationship. This is a delicate relationship that needs care and commitment to establish. When there is no trust in a physician or they lack ethical reasoning in their practices, the relationship is the first to go. It is also important not to place all the responsibility for maintaining ethical standards solely on the physician and to acknowledge the institutions and systems they serve in, where most frustration lies. Still, suppose we are to change how we treat our communities; in that case, we must also understand that, although the healthcare system is flawed, the physician must counteract unethical management by fostering strong relationships with our patients. Physicians aim to create a trusting environment where patients can be honest with themselves and us. They strive to develop a partnership in care and recognize that the humanity of our patients is just as important as treating the illness for which they came to see us. Medicine and ethics are inextricably linked and cannot reach their full potential without this acknowledgment.

    I will use the metaphysical as an example to better understand the concept of moral reasoning. The esoteric is a constant concern for every patient, whether or not the practitioner is aware of it. The patients are dealing with their health and hence their mortality, and although their health may be extended and, hypothetically, increased, we all understand that we are all mortals. The metaphysical is integral to the human condition, and our mortality is her expression. Health professionals who do not know what this concept means to our species should take the time to engage with this thought. I will not explain how death and metaphysics coexist or how patients deal with their mortality. Instead, I will start by sharing my perspective on how ethics emerged as the central focus of healthcare through the concept of mortality.

    Moral reasoning and decision-making within society have evolved due to the development of ethical thinking and, consequently, the sciences of philosophy, which result from our need to understand our mortality. Only recently have healthcare professionals begun practicing medicine without acknowledging the metaphysical, a branch of philosophy and a sister science to ethics. Healthcare professionals could not heal without realizing the metaphysical until recently. Creation, the universe, or God was the center of treatment. Physicians would focus on the connection between the body and mind in the past, when little was understood and known. Within this connection, I argue, moral reasoning emerged. The healer’s goal was to reconnect these two elements. Previously, what was not understood was referred to as God, and to this day, what remains unknown continues to be referred to as God. So, my theory was that the healer understood the unknown, with fewer facts than we do today, but they used morality as the foundation of their healing. Over time, morality alone proved insufficient to treat the patient, leading to a new evolution of thought that paved the way for the scientific revolution, a pivotal period in the development of modern medicine. This era brought advancements in treatment and technology that have made it possible to address illnesses once considered terminal, providing hope to more communities and increasing access to life-saving options. Therefore, ethics should be developed as a philosophy in healthcare to help us reconnect the mind and body by applying a scientific approach with the aid of ethics to understand their connection.

    Since then, our society has shifted into a state that can be viewed as more disconnected from one another than ever before. The more disconnected individuals are from themselves and their community, the less inclined they are to consider their mortality. So, when faced with illness and thus their mortality, a physician might not be surprised to see a dissociated patient—dissociated from everything that has to do with their illness, which has little positive effect on the clinical outcome. Therefore, I strongly encourage healthcare professionals to reflect on the daily challenges—the existential, the unknown, the metaphysical, or the concept of God. Perhaps for some, the acknowledgment of the metaphysical is the route to moral reasoning in their own lives. I also believe denying the metaphysical within the patient-physician relationship is a disservice to the profession and the people we treat. Learning to engage with grief and convey the right words to comfort the ill is a valuable skill.

    Ethical principles have evolved and progressed over time to reflect our pursuit of a fair future that places people at the center, adopts a humanitarian approach to decision-making, and promotes democratic principles as an integral part of a free society’s development.

    Although often associated with only philosophy, ethics has a profound connection to science, particularly in areas where human actions and decisions have significant consequences, such as medicine, environmental science, and technology. Its placement in the realm of metaphysics reflects its focus on understanding concepts that transcend the physical and empirical, dealing with values, principles, and the nature of morality.

    In practical terms, ethics can be viewed as a guide for conducting and applying science. Science, by its nature, seeks objective truths about the natural world, while ethics provides the framework for determining how those truths can influence human actions. For instance, in medicine, ethics informs decisions about patient care, research methodologies, and public health policies. The scientific method, grounded in evidence and rationality, often intersects with ethical reasoning, which demands careful consideration of outcomes, fairness, and human dignity.

    Modern science cannot operate without considering ethical concerns, as its applications invariably impact people, communities, and societies. As we step forward into the future of medicine, with numerous advancements in diagnostics, treatments, medical research, and genetics, we find ourselves in increasingly complex ethical situations. Society has transformed its thinking and come to understand the necessity of moral principles. If not as patients, then as individuals. With advancements in technology, particularly in AI and its role in healthcare and policymaking, we see a growing need for ethical frameworks in our professions, as it is a powerful tool against the massive rise in propaganda and psychological warfare. Protecting our privacy and our people is a modern concern for many sovereign states. The ethical framework, I believe, should now be an implemented procedure for policymakers, government employees, healthcare providers, and all parties involved in the logistics of the process. We need a rise in awareness of thought, and this is a process that involves ethical mindsets and frameworks. If we are to fight intelligently, it is wiser to do it with a moral framework, as it can be used to reach conclusions.

    Currently, the world faces numerous pressing psychological and social issues destabilizing all world regions. Particularly in healthcare, we have seen a rise in discourse surrounding genetics and vaccines, accompanied by a growing distrust in these fields. In these fields, we must implement frameworks that strike a balance. As a physician would do when dealing with pressing issues, such as End-of-Life care. We can identify common ground in policy management and other management styles from fields like palliative care.

    Discussions in healthcare and medical research can serve as a platform for learning in other fields of business. Bridging the gap between ideologies and vocations, and fostering a flow of information within an ethical framework, enabling us to build a more united and understanding society.