Impending ethical issues?

[Slowpoke]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I tend to pride myself on being very open minded and non-judgmental to patients' personal choices in life. As long as the behaviors and habits an individual partakes in does not endanger themselves, or anyone around them I tend to be for it. Life is short, everyone should feel comfortable being able to live their lives the way that they want (within the realm of reason).

Can anyone think of a scenario where this way of thinking would put myself in an ethical issue involving a patient?

 

[Rendar5]

abuse cases, parents not providing appropriate care to kids, involuntary psych admissions?

 

[Slowpoke]

abuse cases, parents not providing appropriate care to kids, involuntary psych admissions?

Could you expand a little bit more on any of these cases? I feel like in all of these cases someone is being endangered, and I would not passively or actively receive this information without feeling a sort of necessity to do something about it.

 

[FutureInternist]

I tend to pride myself on being very open minded and non-judgmental to patients' personal choices in life. As long as the behaviors and habits an individual partakes in does not endanger themselves, or anyone around them I tend to be for it. Life is short, everyone should feel comfortable being able to live their lives the way that they want (within the realm of reason).

Can anyone think of a scenario where this way of thinking would put myself in an ethical issue involving a patient?

Alcoholic patient with his 3rd GI bleed due to continuing to drink needing more & more blood

 

[DocVapor]

As long as the behaviors and habits an individual partakes in does not endanger themselves, or anyone around them I tend to be for it.

I think before you start considering ethical issues you have to clear up this huge grey area first.

Example: Bloomberg pushed through regulations banning restaurants in NYC from serving sodas over 16 ounces because he felt that large sodas are a danger to the person drinking them.

It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, but somehow it still happened.

 

[Acoustic]

I think before you start considering ethical issues you have to clear up this huge grey area first.

Example: Bloomberg pushed through regulations banning restaurants in NYC from serving sodas over 16 ounces because he felt that large sodas are a danger to the person drinking them.

It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, but somehow it still happened.

Exactly. It sounds like you have a specific question in mind. Like someone told you they didn't like your ethical reasoning. In any case, almost any "endangerment to themselves or another" can be found in almost any situation. You can even get abstract to the point of social endangerment (healthcare costs) or psychological (hurting family members simply because they disagree with the other person's decision).

 

[Slowpoke]

Exactly. It sounds like you have a specific question in mind. Like someone told you they didn't like your ethical reasoning. In any case, almost any "endangerment to themselves or another" can be found in almost any situation. You can even get abstract to the point of social endangerment (healthcare costs) or psychological (hurting family members simply because they disagree with the other person's decision).

Sorry, I must have not stated it well in my initial post. The question that I am truly getting at is as you stated, using this type of ethical reasoning what problems could likely arise from it? For sake of simplicity, I interpret endangerment to be related to any ill effects towards physical or mental health.

 

[Acoustic]

Sorry, I must have not stated it well in my initial post. The question that I am truly getting at is as you stated, using this type of ethical reasoning what problems could likely arise from it? For sake of simplicity, I interpret endangerment to be related to any ill effects towards physical or mental health.

That's what could go wrong with it. Interpretations of endangerment are just that, interpretations. As with all of ethics there are really only shades of gray, so while it might seem cut and dry to say "as long as they aren't hurting anybody", it really isn't. Because who is to say whether actions are really causing hurt, and whether that hurt is a justifiable reason to avoid the original action?

Even going with your reasoning about ill effects towards physical or mental health... some parents could say it causes them great ill effects on their mental health to have their child pursue a career that is not the one they want them to. Does that mean that their pain is reason to have that child not choose the other career?

So the problem is in the illusion of being cut and dry.

To give you a more specific medical example: Jehovah's Witnesses & blood transfusions. Say the teenage child wants to get one. This would clearly affect the mental health of the parents, because to them it would mean their child is going against their and potentially his religion. This could easily be a "the teen isn't really hurting anyone, because it is his decision to make". It all comes down to varying degrees of suffering because of other people's decisions.

 

[Slowpoke]

That's what could go wrong with it. Interpretations of endangerment are just that, interpretations. As with all of ethics there are really only shades of gray, so while it might seem cut and dry to say "as long as they aren't hurting anybody", it really isn't. Because who is to say whether actions are really causing hurt, and whether that hurt is a justifiable reason to avoid the original action?

Even going with your reasoning about ill effects towards physical or mental health... some parents could say it causes them great ill effects on their mental health to have their child pursue a career that is not the one they want them to. Does that mean that their pain is reason to have that child not choose the other career?

So the problem is in the illusion of being cut and dry.

Aw, I understand your point. I think it may be my habit of trying to simplify things which in reality may be convoluted with many layers of complexity.

If you were to critique my initial line of reasoning, is there anything else you would add?

 

[Acoustic]

Aw, I understand your point. I think it may be my habit of trying to simplify things which in reality may be convoluted with many layers of complexity.

If you were to critique my initial line of reasoning, is there anything else you would add?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you mostly. People should have the freedom to mostly do as they please, within reason.

I think the argument you put up is commonly used in two ways: to defend the legalization of drugs and to justify sometimes selfish behavior. Especially with the second, I've seen people say that when they were really trying to justify why their actions shouldn't be dependent on how other people perceive them. This idea is very Ayn Rand/objectivist, and utterly ignores that a society is built of people that are inevitably interconnected. It can be used as a way to legitimize antisocial behavior. No man is an island and all that. So while the argument doesn't inherently have these qualities to them, I think it's often used in that context. It can have a bad connotation, like a junky minimizing their addiction or a selfish person rationalizing their behavior.