By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
About this sample
About this sample
Words: 1191 |
Pages: 3|
6 min read
Published: May 19, 2020
Words: 1191|Pages: 3|6 min read
Published: May 19, 2020
Our children are the future of society and will flourish in forthcoming endeavours when given proper education, guidance and support. Children need to be given a chance to succeed, for instance Joe Weinstein is an 11-year-old boy with Down Syndrome who needs immediate corrective surgery is denied consent of such surgery by his parents. If Joe were to outlive his parents, they believe that resources are inadequate and fear that Joe will become a burden to their other non-disabled children. Without Joe’s corrective surgery, he would live no longer than the life expectancy of 30 years old. As a medical practitioner, I would go through with the corrective surgery if Joe agrees to the procedure against the wishes of his parents because of Joe’s autonomy and weak paternalism. I will also argue that I would highly recommend Joe give consent to the surgery because the overall benefits outweigh the risks.
In order to consider performing a surgical procedure on Joe it is my duty to consult with the patient, and as well as well his parents/guardians if he is under the age of consent of 18 years old for surgical operations. I would need to assess Joe’s competency, in order to ensure his autonomy. Joe shows signs of adequate motor and manual skills, cognitive awareness and can communicate verbally with his peers. In addition, according to Brock and Buchanan’s understanding of competency, Joe would also be presumed competent to accept the potentially life-saving treatment that is relatively free of risk, however, incompetent to reject it. Except we do not know Joe’s choice but what his parents decided for him. In the eyes of Brock and Buchanan his parents would be deemed incompetent for refusing the surgery. One might argue that Joe cannot be autonomous because he has Down Syndrome and that affects his competency, as well as he is not capable of grasping the severity of his situation based off his age.
My argument is that even though Joe is only 11 years old and is nearing the primal age of puberty, that he should have a say in what may affect his life. Since, the principle of autonomy is the principle of self-determination, that declares we should promote others to make decisions and choices that benefit them. His parents are preventing Joe from being autonomous because they are making the decision without his consent. An argument may be that his parents have the complete authority to make the decision for him because Joe would not completely understand the concept of life at this age. However, I would argue that his parents are choosing to deny Joe from living a much longer and promising life.
Furthermore, Savulescu and Momeyer state that being autonomous requires holding rational beliefs and making rational deliberations. Joe’s parents would be holding irrational beliefs in that they are failing to hold a belief responsive to the evidence. Joe’s corrective surgery secures that Joe will live past 30 years old without performing an abrasive life-threatening surgery. But his parent’s belief that the inadequate resource and fear of Joe becoming a burden to his siblings outweighs the evidence shows an irrational deliberation. Also, concluding without evidence of these potential consequences, questions the rationality of his parents’ beliefs and deliberations. Parents want to do what’s best for their children, even if it means interfering with their actions and decisions. In Joe’s situation his parents made the decision to refuse the surgery because they thought it was the best choice. However, I would argue that their decision was an act of weak paternalism. Based off Mappes and Zembaty’s concept of paternalism, simply stating that necessary intervention with a person’s freedom is justifiable because of reasons that will benefit them through good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being suppressed.
Paternalism is considered weak when a person’s freedom is restricted in order to prevent him/her from harming him/herself. Joe’s parents are preventing Joe from going through with the procedure in order to prevent harm to their other non-disabled children in the future. Even though Joe has never lived at home with his family, his parents still fear that this would be a consequence of Joe’s successful surgery. Since Joe has never lived at home, is attending a special school with children similar to Joe he and is recommended to go to community sheltered workshop following his education, where he will have gainful employment. He can live an independent life after the surgery with little assistance. Hence, their denial of the surgery is not justifiable because Joe would not gain anything from them doing so.
Furthermore, what kind of parents would not want their child to live a long and healthy life, but to focus on how he may be a burden to others who are not like him, makes you question their parental beliefs. Finally, the roots of bioethics principles are the principle of nonmaleficence and the principle of beneficence. These principles share a common idea that one should do good by not causing harm to others physically, emotionally or mentally and promoting the well-being of others. My argument is that if Joe does not go through with the surgery, then that could cause him harm because his days would be numbered.
One would argue that everyone dies eventually and living 10-20 years longer would not matter. I would argue that if the patient were to be older that it would be the case, however Joe is only 11 years old and adding 40-70 more years would affect his life immensely. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of beneficence I would argue that going through with the surgery would be good for Joe and his parents. Joe would be able to run and play like all normal children and his parents would be able to make up the time Joe spent away from them.
One may argue that Joe may never be like the normal children because he would still have Down Syndrome regardless of the surgery. I would argue that children with Down Syndrome may have mild to moderate intellectual disability, but it would just mean that Joe would have to learn at his own pace. Based off the following evidence I as a medical practitioner would highly recommend Joe to give consent to the surgery, because of all the benefits that will come after the successful corrective surgery. Joe is capable of living a long prosperous life despite his Down Syndrome if he gets the surgical operation and be able to reach his goals in life. He will be able to live an independent life, get proper education and enjoy his family when the time comes. In addition, there is only a 3-5% risk of death associated with the procedure. In order to maintain a patient practitioner relationship, I would accept his decision no matter the outcome.
In conclusion, I argue that Joe should go through with the corrective surgical operation to respect Joe’s autonomy and correct his parent’s views of his handicaps. As well as Joe’s medical practitioner do my best to give all the information needed for my patient to make a free and informed decision with full knowledge of the corrective surgical procedure.
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled