Dr. T should not write a prescription for antibiotics for Jeff. As mentioned in the question, when we use antibiotics unnecessarily bacteria adapt and become resistant to that antibiotic so, when we do need it, it is not as effective. I do not agree with giving medications that are not physiologically needed. That said, to answer the question of whether physicians should offer treatments whose sole purpose is to provide psychological comfort based on a false belief, I would say no. When a doctor prescribes a medicine purely for comfort instead of taking the time to explain why it will not do any good (e.g., the difference between bacteria and a virus) they are being condescending to the patient. They are implying the patient is too stupid to understand, so rather than explaining, the doctor just writes the prescription and gets them out of their office. That’s wrong in itself, especially since they have not helped the patient at all, and slightly hurt them, since they now believe in a mechanism of action of the medicine that is incorrect and are going to pay money for it that they could be using elsewhere. Then, if the patient does some research and realizes they never needed the medicine they are unlikely to return to a doctor that lied to them and will tell others not to go to that doctor. So, the doctor, by writing a physiologically pointless but psychologically comforting prescription could lose business.
I do not think that Dr. T should honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics. The overuse and abuse of using antibiotics leads to resistant bacteria. If Jeff R were to become infected with bacteria, this antibiotic might no longer be effective. It is not appropriate for physicians to offer treatments whose sole purpose is to provide psychological comfort when that comfort is based on a false belief. This does not help the patient at all, and could actually harm the patient. Thus the physician is not promoting the patient’s overall well-being. Looking at this case from a Kantian standpoint, the doctor could choose to honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics. As long as Dr. T follows the perfect duties to others (the duties not to kill an innocent person, not to lie, and to keep promises), Dr. T could to act in the imperfect duty of beneficence of others (helping Jeff R feel that something is being done for his condition). However, there is no obligation to perform any specific beneficent action.
Dr. T should not honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics because it goes against basic utilitarian principles. The antibiotic prescription not only has the potential to make bacteria more antibiotic resistant (putting the lives of other people at risk), it also costs valuable resources and money in an already costly healthcare system. There is a need for doctors to minimize the amount of money we spend on unnecessary treatments. At the same time, there is a need for doctors to honor their patient’s needs, however Dr. T is not going against this principles, in that the antibiotic wouldn’t actually help Jeff R, and is therefore not in his best interest. While the antibiotic may alleviate some of his psychological stress, it would not provide real aide against his viral infection. While some may argue the doctor is acting paternalistically, making it immoral, I think it is justified in that Jeff R isn’t actually fully autonomous. While he is given full information, his sickness likely is impairing his ability to make sound judgments. In this manner, offering the antibiotic goes against Jeff R’s right to autonomy.
I do not feel that the doctor should write the prescription. It may have short time benefits for Jeff and his psychological need for medicine, but overall, prescribing an antibiotic that is not needed could cause some serious damage. Bacteria could become resistant to the antibiotic and cause problems in the future for many people. I believe giving Jeff a prescription would be going against Kants perfect duty to others. The doctor would be lying to Jeff saying that the medicine will help with his flu symptoms. Another aspect of Kantian system is doing no harm to others. While the antibiotic would be causing no physical harm to Jeff, it would be causing harm to society by possibly allowing bacteria to become resistant to that medicine. Lastly, the doctor could be using the prescription merely as a means to get Jeff out of the office. I do not see any benefits from giving Jeff the prescription he wants. However, what if the doctor was to prescribe Jeff a placebo to "help" his symptoms? This would help him psychologically, possibly help him physically, and leave him content with the outcome. In this case, is giving someone a placebo morally permissable?
Dr, T. should not honor Jeff request for antibiotics especially since she bother to explain to Jeff that antibiotics are physiologically useless against the flu and other viruses, as opposed to bacterial infections. It may cause Jeff to be resistance when he really needs a antibiotic. It is definitely wrong for a Dr. to provide psychological conform when that contort level is based on a false belief or misunderstanding. This is even a problem today with our meats and chickens. They are so filled with antibiotics our resistance is low. Overuse is overkill.
Prescribing someone a drug solely because they want it is not justifiable. A doctor wouldn't prescribe a patient with pain killers or ADD medacine simply because they want it. The reasons for wanting the drug may be a little different, but they are both for reasons that aren't necessary. Alhtough some people may look at this case the same way as the unnessary root canals, I do not. Prescribing the patient with these antibotics has no physical benefits; in fact, it would be doing the patient more harm in the long-run. If the individual has psychological issues concerning pain, he needs to deal with those in other ways. From experience, I have dealt with issues of always thinking something is wrong with me. I wouldn't reccomend medication but instead some kind of counseling and education. If you allow this patient to take a drug/placebo now, his "conditon" may worsen and he may want to take extreme measures in the future. By treating his irrational thinking now, you can help to eliminate his need for drugs in the future. It would be against the ethical code of the doctor to prescribe these drugs; his job is to promote wellness not only physcially but psychologically as well.
Dr. T should not write a prescription for antibiotics for Jeff. As mentioned in the question, when we use antibiotics unnecessarily bacteria adapt and become resistant to that antibiotic so, when we do need it, it is not as effective. I do not agree with giving medications that are not physiologically needed. That said, to answer the question of whether physicians should offer treatments whose sole purpose is to provide psychological comfort based on a false belief, I would say no. When a doctor prescribes a medicine purely for comfort instead of taking the time to explain why it will not do any good (e.g., the difference between bacteria and a virus) they are being condescending to the patient. They are implying the patient is too stupid to understand, so rather than explaining, the doctor just writes the prescription and gets them out of their office. That’s wrong in itself, especially since they have not helped the patient at all, and slightly hurt them, since they now believe in a mechanism of action of the medicine that is incorrect and are going to pay money for it that they could be using elsewhere. Then, if the patient does some research and realizes they never needed the medicine they are unlikely to return to a doctor that lied to them and will tell others not to go to that doctor. So, the doctor, by writing a physiologically pointless but psychologically comforting prescription could lose business.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Dr. T should honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics. The overuse and abuse of using antibiotics leads to resistant bacteria. If Jeff R were to become infected with bacteria, this antibiotic might no longer be effective. It is not appropriate for physicians to offer treatments whose sole purpose is to provide psychological comfort when that comfort is based on a false belief. This does not help the patient at all, and could actually harm the patient. Thus the physician is not promoting the patient’s overall well-being.
ReplyDeleteLooking at this case from a Kantian standpoint, the doctor could choose to honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics. As long as Dr. T follows the perfect duties to others (the duties not to kill an innocent person, not to lie, and to keep promises), Dr. T could to act in the imperfect duty of beneficence of others (helping Jeff R feel that something is being done for his condition). However, there is no obligation to perform any specific beneficent action.
Dr. T should not honor Jeff R’s request for antibiotics because it goes against basic utilitarian principles. The antibiotic prescription not only has the potential to make bacteria more antibiotic resistant (putting the lives of other people at risk), it also costs valuable resources and money in an already costly healthcare system. There is a need for doctors to minimize the amount of money we spend on unnecessary treatments. At the same time, there is a need for doctors to honor their patient’s needs, however Dr. T is not going against this principles, in that the antibiotic wouldn’t actually help Jeff R, and is therefore not in his best interest. While the antibiotic may alleviate some of his psychological stress, it would not provide real aide against his viral infection. While some may argue the doctor is acting paternalistically, making it immoral, I think it is justified in that Jeff R isn’t actually fully autonomous. While he is given full information, his sickness likely is impairing his ability to make sound judgments. In this manner, offering the antibiotic goes against Jeff R’s right to autonomy.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that the doctor should write the prescription. It may have short time benefits for Jeff and his psychological need for medicine, but overall, prescribing an antibiotic that is not needed could cause some serious damage. Bacteria could become resistant to the antibiotic and cause problems in the future for many people. I believe giving Jeff a prescription would be going against Kants perfect duty to others. The doctor would be lying to Jeff saying that the medicine will help with his flu symptoms. Another aspect of Kantian system is doing no harm to others. While the antibiotic would be causing no physical harm to Jeff, it would be causing harm to society by possibly allowing bacteria to become resistant to that medicine. Lastly, the doctor could be using the prescription merely as a means to get Jeff out of the office. I do not see any benefits from giving Jeff the prescription he wants. However, what if the doctor was to prescribe Jeff a placebo to "help" his symptoms? This would help him psychologically, possibly help him physically, and leave him content with the outcome. In this case, is giving someone a placebo morally permissable?
ReplyDeleteDr, T. should not honor Jeff request for antibiotics especially since she bother to explain to Jeff that antibiotics are physiologically useless against the flu and other viruses, as opposed to bacterial infections. It may cause Jeff to be resistance when he really needs a antibiotic. It is definitely wrong for a Dr. to provide psychological conform when that contort level is based on a false belief or misunderstanding. This is even a problem today with our meats and chickens. They are so filled with antibiotics our resistance is low. Overuse is overkill.
ReplyDeletePrescribing someone a drug solely because they want it is not justifiable. A doctor wouldn't prescribe a patient with pain killers or ADD medacine simply because they want it. The reasons for wanting the drug may be a little different, but they are both for reasons that aren't necessary. Alhtough some people may look at this case the same way as the unnessary root canals, I do not. Prescribing the patient with these antibotics has no physical benefits; in fact, it would be doing the patient more harm in the long-run. If the individual has psychological issues concerning pain, he needs to deal with those in other ways. From experience, I have dealt with issues of always thinking something is wrong with me. I wouldn't reccomend medication but instead some kind of counseling and education. If you allow this patient to take a drug/placebo now, his "conditon" may worsen and he may want to take extreme measures in the future. By treating his irrational thinking now, you can help to eliminate his need for drugs in the future. It would be against the ethical code of the doctor to prescribe these drugs; his job is to promote wellness not only physcially but psychologically as well.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in chennai