Norman Vincent Peale's Three-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model
According to the principles of Consequential ethics, one can see why the surgeons would come to the conclusion of performing the surgery without the patient’s explicit consent being acceptable. Given that said principle revolves around the idea of what is “intrinsically good or bad,” the surgeons did what they thought was best for the patient.
However, if one were to implement the “Three-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model” from Norman Vincent Peale for solving an ethical dilemma one would have realized that this course of action is illegal thus being immoral.
The surgeons could have talked her into contacting her family, or close friends, for them to discuss the issue within themselves. Whereas, it would be possible for the patient to make …show more content…
Such cases would be when a patient has some sort of mental disability where they cannot fully appreciate the events and outcomes thus having to render their autonomy to a legal guardian who is able to make the educated decision on their behalf.
Yet, if the patient was lucid in her thinking, then taking her autonomy would be completely immoral. Revoking her autonomy would contradict the pillars of deontology since it is clearly going against the patient’s right. It is ultimately the patient’s decision on whether or not she would want the life-saving treatment since it would directly impact her livelihood.
If one were to consider a court order, making the physicians’ decision legal, one could continue to implement the “Three-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model” previously mentioned. After noting that the decision is legal, based on valid reasoning, one would proceed to investigate the avenue of it being “balanced”. The action of surgically repairing an aneurysm is indeed balanced since it is not extreme in respects to saving a human life. The last step would be to indicate how performing this action would make one feel. Given that this last step is subjective to the individual, one could argue that the surgeons were comfortable with this decision since they proceeded to perform the procedure regardless. As a result of these steps, one could conclude that the surgery was
However, if one were to implement the “Three-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model” from Norman Vincent Peale for solving an ethical dilemma one would have realized that this course of action is illegal thus being immoral.
The surgeons could have talked her into contacting her family, or close friends, for them to discuss the issue within themselves. Whereas, it would be possible for the patient to make …show more content…
Such cases would be when a patient has some sort of mental disability where they cannot fully appreciate the events and outcomes thus having to render their autonomy to a legal guardian who is able to make the educated decision on their behalf.
Yet, if the patient was lucid in her thinking, then taking her autonomy would be completely immoral. Revoking her autonomy would contradict the pillars of deontology since it is clearly going against the patient’s right. It is ultimately the patient’s decision on whether or not she would want the life-saving treatment since it would directly impact her livelihood.
If one were to consider a court order, making the physicians’ decision legal, one could continue to implement the “Three-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model” previously mentioned. After noting that the decision is legal, based on valid reasoning, one would proceed to investigate the avenue of it being “balanced”. The action of surgically repairing an aneurysm is indeed balanced since it is not extreme in respects to saving a human life. The last step would be to indicate how performing this action would make one feel. Given that this last step is subjective to the individual, one could argue that the surgeons were comfortable with this decision since they proceeded to perform the procedure regardless. As a result of these steps, one could conclude that the surgery was