2TASK 3: A MORAL DILEMMAIn this given scenario, I would ultimately not comply with Mr. Newcomb’s request. Myreasoning to him would be that I do not feel comfortable being dishonest with his wife. I wouldtry to keep myself from elaborating too much more to him in an effort to prevent my judgementsof him and the situation from being known. I would want to tell his wife about the situation, but Ibelieve I would come to the conclusion that it is not my place to bring such a heavy piece ofinformation to the wife of a dying man. This information could ultimately destroy his legacy anddamage what his loved ones think of him. If he weren’t about to die, I may not feel so bad aboutsharing my opinion and the information with his wife.With a case so morally and ethically complicated, it is helpful to look at some basicprinciples that are the foundation of the ethics of the medical field. Beneficence is defined as“An ethical principle of compassion and patient advocacy, stating that one should do good andprevent or avoid doing harm,” while nonmaleficence is defined as, “An ethical principle statingthe duty to not inflict harm,” (Cherry & Jacob, 2019). In my opinion, there is no clear-cut actionof beneficence nor nonmaleficence here. What does one define as “doing good” and “doingharm?” If one were to follow through with Mr. Newcomb’s request, it could be argued that Gheindividual is “doing harm” on his relationship and his legacy, while another might argue That 5eindividual would be “doing good” to the patient by fulfilling one of his final requests. This leadsto the next ethical dilemma of autonomy. Autonomy is defined as, “personal freedom and theright of competent people to make choices,” (Cherry & Jacob, 2019). In my opinion, it’s a highly
