{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

bioethics paper 1 slimmed

bioethics paper 1 slimmed - Kyle Harbison Diagnostic...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kyle Harbison CM 1090 Diagnostic Privacy In the article “The Patient’s Right to Know,” published by Forbes Magazine in July 2006, several ethical issues are brought to light concerning patient’s privacy when it comes to diagnosing diseases. In this article, author Peter Huber describes how under FDA approval technology could exist today for the manufacture of home diagnostic kits to detect small traces of disease. When considering the ethical questions involved and why they have become issues as they are presented in this article, Bernard Gert’s rules of common morality quickly come to mind, and thus can be used in relation as a guide for professional action. Huber starts off initially posing an ethical issue that although resolved, has set precedence towards now-relevant issues: Is it ok for a grown woman to privately find out if she is pregnant? The issue behind this question was that a doctor’s advice and proficiency are necessary elements of pregnancy diagnosis, for perhaps some women who test positive may in distress take steps not suitable for the baby and herself whether she wants to keep it or not. When considering this ethical issue, a few of Gert’s morality rules stand out more than others. The first rule being do not deprive of freedom, understandably because refuting one’s right to privately diagnose themselves is limiting their freedom of privacy. Do not disable and do not kill go along the same line, because limiting one’s potential to acquire possible life-altering knowledge is disabling one’s ability to make decisions for their
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online