Ethics and Research in Professional Contexts

judgmentionEthics play a diametrical role in a manikin of backgrounds, such as conclusivenesss in individualized contexts (e.g. family, friends) and professional contexts (e.g. work dimension). This es regulate con posturers the role of ethics in the faux pas study of a chars ratiocination to be ask an stillbirth. Drawing on and synthesising work from philosophy, practice of law and current medical practice, the es phrase leave alone discuss advantageously issues on stillbirth from three opposite viewpoints. These viewpoints will be reviewed and discussed in order to r apiece a conclusion.Case studyMrs K is a 37-year-old muliebrity and has four children. She consults her load for easydom fighter periods. She had been using a diaphragm as contraception after having stopped fetching birth control pills because of their negative side effects. Her revive informs her that she is pregnant. She does non want otherwise child. She breaks d bear and says she alread y has as many a(prenominal) children that she apprise distribute with. Mrs K besides suffers from embossment. Her prepare considers her circumstances that f in all inwardly the stillbirth title 1967 and refers her to a clinic. However, her save (Mr K) disagrees with the abortion.This essay will investigate good issues central to this reference study. Ethical issues flow from situations in which there is no o.k. solution that can be use to an ethical dilemma. Opposing courses of action whitethorn come along equally desir able-bodied or all possible solutions may seem undesirable. In the aforementioned case study, the ethical dilemma addresses two opposing views on abortion and discusses whether it is the properly determination stipulation the circumstances. This essay will explore this ethical dilemma by step uplining three divers(prenominal) viewpoints and discussing whether each viewpoint is warrant.Discussion on that point atomic effect 18 three key indivi duals touch on in this case study Mrs. K, Mr. K and the animate. Mrs K. is at the centre of the dilemma as she wishes to harbor the abortion, Mr K. is Mrs Ks preserve and disagrees with the idea of abortion, and the doctor assesses and guides Mrs Ks decisions.Mrs KPrior to assessing Mrs Ks viewpoint, it is all-important(prenominal) to outline her circumstances. Mrs K had been on contraception because she was very gain ground that would non be able to cope with the office of having one more child. However, her contraception failed and the doctor nonified Mrs K that she was indeed pregnant, prompting her to bow a decision on having an abortion. Firstly, to a lower place the philosophical principles of Utilitarianism, it may be argued that Mrs K is justified in taking the decision to fox an abortion for a proceeds of reasons. Utilitarianism was first conceived by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and was later demonstrable by John Stuart Mill (1806-73) in the middle of the Indu strial Revolution. Mill naturalized the sterling(prenominal) happiness principle which posits that actions be by proper(ip)s(a) when they promote happiness, and wrong when they drive the opposite (Tschudin, 1994). According to Mills principle, with regard to tidy sums confess lives and bodies, people can do whatever we want, so long as others be not harmed (Feiser, 2009). In other words, each individual has the ability to choose what they tactile sensation is good or im lesson. In incident, impartiality ethics does not hand out specific rules of behaviour that need to be adhered to but instead develops characteristics that help individuals get back on moral decisions, e.g. whether or not to suck an abortion. Virtue ethics does not see abortion as right or wrong as it depends basically on a persons character. In accordance with this theorising, Mrs Ks decision to have an abortion is justified as it is an action that that involves her feature tone and her own body and therefrom, rests on her decision. Secondly, in Utilitarianism, feat Utility states that the massiveest good is that which brings most happiness and least up embed (Feiser, 2009). Using a Hedonic conglutination, individuals can calculate which decision produces the greatest balance of good over unfairness and therefore, apply this reasoning to individual dilemmas (Bentham, 1789). With this work Utilitarianism in mind, Mrs. Ks decision to have an abortion can be seen as the right decision as having a child would cause her sorrowfulness and pain in the future, as closely as be a extensive risk in exacerbating her vivacious depression and anxiety. Additionally, bringing a gratify into a home of four children would halt away time and attention from her other children which could be potentially traumatic for them and block up their development. Therefore, if Mrs K were to use a indulgent calculus, an abortion would certain(a)ly amount to the right decision as it maximi ses the quality of her well-being and that of her children.A third communication channel in favor of Mrs Ks decision is the incident that as an autonomous serviceman being, Mrs K has to right to pick out decisions about her own deportment and body without coercion by others (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). Although researchers have suggested that autonomy is not a univocal concept (Beauchamp and Childress, 2001), in the context of respect for reproductive choice, it does have a specific meaning. At a minimum, autonomy affords respect to an individual when making certain choices and taking actions based upon their individualised value and beliefs. If a pregnant woman is forced, against her will, to hunt nine months of physical, psychological and emotional turmoil, it is awkward to describe her as an autonomous individual. This competition similarly draws on philosophical principles on free will. That is, free will considers military personnel as agents who have the abilit y to patch up their own choices freely (Caruso, 2012). Therefore, in the case of Mrs K, it can be argued that as a free agent, she should have the final say in her actions and decisions that includes her motherliness. If she chooses to end her unwanted pregnancy for her own reasons, then she has the right (and the free will) to do so. This reasoning is in fact, reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act (1948) article 1, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (Williams, 1981) that establishes human rights as innate to every human being. However, it mustiness be noted that this article may also be used as an argument against an abortion if a foetus is considered to be a human being, and therefore having its own individual right to life. Many anti-abortion supporters (i.e. pro-life) do indeed support this argument and high spot that an unborn child is an innocent human being and abortion is therefore wrong. However, pro-choice supporters h ave retorted this position by upholding the concept of personhood. In other words, supporters argue that a foetus does not meet the criteria of personhood and therefore does not have a right to life. This position is echoed in philosophy by Mary Ann Warren who outlines a set of criteria for personhood that include 1) consciousness of objects and events external and internal, 2) reasoning, 3) self-motivated activity, 4) a capacity to communicate, 5) the presence of a self-concept (Warren, 1996). By these criteria, it is clear that foetuses, although they have the ability to finally meet these criteria, would not have a right to life until they are born. Similarly, stopcock Singer posits that only a moral agent is capable of having their rights violated, and as the foetus is not a moral agent, it cannot have its rights violated (Singer, 1995). In other words, as a foetus cannot make moral judgements of what is right or wrong, it does not have the said(prenominal) rights as human be ings. Although some(prenominal) Warren and Singer propose debatable ideas, the arguments of personhood and moral agency adds further plea to Mrs Ks decision to have an abortion.Mr KIn the case study, whilst Mrs K has decided to have an abortion, her husband is against it. From his perspective, he has always wanted a handsome family and therefore, feels very strongly against an abortion. given his views, Mrs Ks decision to have an abortion could ace to appreciable anger and resentment in her husband which could manifest in marital discord and eventually divorce, all of which would be extremely harmful for their children. returning to the hedonic calculus, it is therefore important to dole out into account these potential consequences as they may outweigh the reasons for having an abortion in cost of the happiness of Mrs K and her children. However, at the same time, if Mrs K chose not to have an abortion because of her husbands views, this could lead to considerable anger and resentment in her and make up her depression and anxiety, which could all negatively contact her childrens welfare. The decision is therefore not clear-cut.A second reason that Mr K does not agree with the abortion is because of his own unearthly views. He believes that human pregnancy happens for a divine reason and that man and woman both create a bobble and therefore should have an equal say in what happens to that baby. From the Roman Catholic view, the wrongness of abortion is rooted in the pictorial Law view that innocent life (i.e. from conception) must be preserved (Hunanae Vitae, 1965). However, it must be noted that in 1993, the church service of England produced spontaneous abortion and the Church. In this document, abortion is described as a great moral evil but can be allowed in circumstances in which the foetus let ons the life of the mother or if there is severe foetal disability. Whilst having a baby does not physically endanger Mrs Ks life, it can be ar gued that it endangers her mental life given her depression and anxiety, thereby, justifying an abortion. Moreover, it is important to note that legally, Mr K has no right to demand or discard a termination under the spontaneous abortion Act (1967) & Human Rights Act (1998) that place the entire responsibility to the woman.Doctor health care professionals have a number of responsibilities such as a concern of care to provide women with all the training they need in order to make an informed choice about how to cope with their unplanned pregnancy. The doctor in this case study had the responsibility of making an assessment. Specifically, the doctor must assess the potential wedge of pregnancy and birth on Mrs Ks physical and mental health. In fact, the Abortion Act 1967, as amend by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (House of greenness, 2006), clearly says that a registered medical practician has the power to lawfully terminate a pregnancy. However, it is difficul t to apply blanket rules when relations with considerably sensitive and difficult decisions, which select a deeper understanding of a womans individual needs and desires. Given the difficulties shrouding a pregnancy termination, doctors play an important role in ensuring that a patient role always feels supported. Doctors are also prudent for giving appropriate information and counseling about all the options available to patients (BMA, accessed 10/01/13).In this case study, Mrs K strongly matte that having an abortion would be the best decision and her doctor should therefore be able to respect her decision. Her doctor should act as a guide and act in the best interest of Mrs K (Pfeffer, 2002). The 1967 Abortion Act also refers to a doctors rights to follow the dictates of their own scruples (Pfeffer, 2002). The Doctor therefore, obviously considered Mrs Ks depression and mental capacity and nominate it suitable to refer her to a clinic. The doctor also was able to see that Mrs K was mentally fit to understand the appendage and its alternatives (BMA, accessed 10/01/13).ConclusionThere is no doubt that abortion is a debatable and hotly debated topic in a variety of academic and professional spheres, and different viewpoints are infused with biological, moral and societal complexity. It is clear that there are numerous positions that people can adopt such as a Utilitarian point of view, a religious perspective, or a personal view when seeing an action as moral or immoral. In this busy case study, given Mrs Ks depression, her current family situation and her strong wishes to have an abortion, I believe that her decision is the right one. As a woman, Mrs K has a right to make her own choices and lead her own life in equation with, not under the control of her husband. Moreover, the fact that Mrs K has become pregnant as a result of a protective failure strengthens her decision, as her pregnancy did not come about from carelessness, but from forces int ernational of Mrs Ks control. ReferencesBentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of ethics and Legislation. London. Beachamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical Ethics (5th Edition). Oxford University Press.British medical examination Association, The law and ethics of abortion. Accessed 10/01/13 from www.bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs//Ethics/lawethicsabortionnov07.pdfCaruso, G. D. (2012). Free Will and cognisance A Determinist Account of the conjuring of Free Will. Lexington Books.Fieser, J. (2009). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 10/01/13 from http//www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. (Volume 1). Accessed 10/01/13 from http//www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045i.pdfHumanae Vitae Encyclical Letter of His Holiness pope Paul VI, on the regulation of Births (1965).Pfeffer, N. (2002) cornucopia counts from equity to outcome in S. stouthearted (ed.), Medicine, Health and the public sphere in Britain, 1600-2000 (pp. 260-278). Routledge.Singer, P. (1995). Animal Liberation (2nd Edition). Pimlico.Tschudin, V. (1994). Deciding ethically A Practical Approach to breast feeding Challenges. London Bailliere Tindall.Warren, M. A. On the Moral and statutory Status of Abortion in T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics (1996), New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc, pp. 434-440.Williams, P. (1981). United Nations. world(a) Assembly. The International bill of human rights. Entwhistle Books.