In some countries, it is illegal to stop curing when someone is in a mortal danger. While in some other countries especially where the welfare system is not well developed yet. There is sometimes a gray area. How to choose when the patients cannot afford anymore the enormous medical expenses? Should the hospital keep on treatment or stop curing? How should the hospital concern their moral responsibility? I think the hospital always facing a dilemma problem.
On the one hand, if we seen hospital as a purely administrative organization like other companies in the markets. It is morally acceptable to choose to act rationally and taking account into the economic aspect. While on the other hands, if we seen hospital not only as a purely organization but as a physical institution which must concerns the social responsibility. It’s morally impermissible for the hospital to give up a life. Since the primary duty for physicians and nurses are to benefit the patient. And one of the ultimate human rights is to live. In a country like NL, the hospital that gives up a life would break both the legal duty and moral duty.
In every specific counties and society, the hospital should consider whether it fits better as a purely administrative organization or as a medical staff committee. While it definitely will experience a conflict between the healths care organization concerns and medical staff responsibilities and values. In my own opinion, I think the right to live is over any other conceptual of normative aspects. And it’s a moral responsibility for hospital to save a life.
S947656
4 comments:
It is a dilemma problem almost every hospital in some developing countries with deficient welfare system has faced. Patients with no money and insurance need curing, how should hospital choose? It is not legally wrong if hospital stop curing because the patients cannot afford the curing fee. On the other hand, it is morally impermissible for doctors give up someone’s life. In my opinion, in some developing countries, government needs to set up some hospitals for poor people which receiving low cost of curing fee. The goal of these countries is not earn money but help poor patients.
499432
I think in less developed countries, hospitals are indeed in trouble, especially where the private insurance system is not developed and people are used to public insurance system. Then a hospital in such a country if getting eg. a patient with highly advanced cancer faces a risk of going bankrupt (or at least in significant financial problems) if decides to help him/her. Assuming that is a case such hospital can’t help any more patients, therefore a moral dilemma appears. Should they weight everyone’s possibility to be treated or their value of lives? How to decide if the possibility to cure all other people but someone posing a risk of a bankruptcy is more important or morally right thing to do?
S938339
Primary duty of a doctor is to not harm a patient, then comes curing to the extent of abilities and means such a person has. Another thing is that doctors are people too, they also have families and duties towards for example their children to provide them with food and education. They have to be paid for their job. Additional thing to consider is that there is huge responsibility in their tasks, which should be paid off in some terms, most of the time in terms of money. Now considering a hospital with financial difficulties, such institution not only faces a moral problem of whom to help and whom not but also a problem of a responsibility to pay their employees. Is it governments responsibility to provide their citizens with an insurance system that solves such issues? Or should it be only considered on hospital as an institution level?
S938339
In this case, the hospital has to make a choice between the duty to make profit for the sake of the hospital and the duty of saving a person’s life. In the case that a person is in a life or death situation I believe that the government has the positive duty to provide funding for hospitals to cover these expenses. Everybody has the right to life despite their financial situation. Elective surgeries, or medical treatment that could substantially change someone’s quality of life are still a subject of discussion if the patient cannot afford it, but when it comes to a matter of life or death it is more drastic. The hospital cannot interfere with the negative right to life of these people because they have extra knowledge about their financial situation.
s690159
Post a Comment