Introduction
In the Baby Boy Doe case, parents with autonomy decided not to have their mentally disabled child’s duodenal atresia surgically corrected. These parents have a profound ethical quandary. The infant died of malnutrition as a result of the hospital’s advice and lack of action, which respected the decisions made by the parents (Darr, 2011). The scenario brings up a complex moral situation of determining between the parent and physicians who did right and wrong. For comprehensive comprehension of the dilemma, it is sensible to scrutinize some appropriate questions regarding the situation.
Discuss what makes this an ethical dilemma.
The Baby Boy Doe case symbolizes a moral puzzle characterized by differing standpoints, ethical perspectives, and justly incoherent canons concerning the kid’s medical care. The conflict arises from the hospital’s support of surgical treatments for mental impairment and duodenal atresia. At the same time, the parents choose not to pursue medical care, which leads to the child’s starved death (Darr, 2011). The improbability around the correct course of action makes the situation more challenging, rooted in disagreeing moral values. The seriousness of the problem intensifies the moral and emotional intricacies of the decision-making process.
The conflicting moral precepts in Baby Boy Doe’s case highlight the ethical problem. The hospital promotes a beneficence-oriented viewpoint, on the one hand, placing a strong emphasis on medical intervention for the child’s wellbeing (Darr, 2011). However, the parents’ decision to refuse therapy stems from their desire for autonomy, which leads to a moral contradiction (Hentoff, 2020). The seriousness of the potentially fatal outcomes also intensifies the ethical complexity by highlighting the significant risks associated with choosing the baby’s course. These elements add to the complex moral conundrum that surrounds Baby Boy Doe’s medical care.
One argument against calling the scenario an ethical conundrum is that the hospital respected parental autonomy by letting the parents make decisions about their child. In addition, Albersheim (2020), a professor at the University of British Columbia, suggests that the medical facility respects the parents’ autonomy and abstains from taking paternalistic acts, such as imposing its opinions. The observed lack of clarity in determining the ethical right course of action contributes to the complexity and suggests there might not be a simple answer to the problem. These factors raise questions about the idea that the case poses a straightforward moral dilemma and emphasize how difficult it is to make decisions.
Discuss the implications of this study in terms of the moral principles described in the chapter.
Baby Boy Doe’s parents were given the freedom to choose their child’s medical treatment, which the hospital respected on the grounds of morality. Consequently demonstrating their respect for their autonomy. Maintaining autonomy, a cornerstone of respect for individuals was shown by the hospital’s non-coercive strategy, which offered a specific course of action (Albersheim, 2020). However, critics argue that the hospital’s lack of aggressive intervention raises questions about possible harm to the youngster. This moral predicament highlights the thin line that needs to be established between preserving independence and ensuring the safety of those who might not be able to make the best choices for themselves.
Moreover, the hospital validated its beneficence and commitment to the baby’s health by offering a course of treatment for the child’s duodenal atresia. However, the parent’s choice to forgo this treatment had an unfavorable consequence, drawing criticism of the hospital’s altruistic efforts. Hentoff (2020) argued that the parental decision undermined the efficacy of the recommended treatment, underscoring the intricate relationship between medical advice and individual decision-making freedom. This emphasizes the moral dilemmas healthcare professionals encounter when doing good deeds requires the consent and cooperation of all parties concerned.
In the instance of Baby Boy Doe, the idea of nonmaleficence, or “no harm,” offers two different points of view. On the one hand, respecting the parents’ decision is consistent with nonmaleficence because it helps to avert harm that could result from employing coercive measures. However, there is a counterargument that the child suffered because the parents declined to pursue a potentially helpful course of treatment (Darr, 2011). This calls into doubt the simple application of the nonmaleficence principle in intricate medical settings and raises ethical concerns about how to strike a balance between protecting the child’s welfare and upholding autonomy.
Moreover, advocates may consider the hospital’s conduct in the Baby Boy Doe case to be just because they respected the parents’ autonomy and offered assistance” without imposing their opinions. This viewpoint highlights how crucial it is to uphold people’s rights to make decisions for their children (Hentoff, 2020). Critics, however, argued that justice was not done. The unjust and unfortunate consequence for Baby Boy Doe is highlighted, as it is believed that the child’s right to medical care has not been adequately realized.
Finally, did the hospital do all it could in this situation? Did it act appropriately?
The institution was committed to moral values by upholding the parents’ autonomy. The parents were given complete information and guidance about the child’s medical condition by the doctors, but they were still free to make the final decision. This strategy respects the autonomy of persons and acknowledges the parental authority in making decisions for their child, which aligns with the core ethical concept (Hentoff, 2020). The hospital recognized the value of parental involvement in choosing the course of medical care for their kid. It sought to support a collaborative decision-making process by providing the parents with knowledge and autonomy.
However, critics argue that the child’s welfare may have suffered as a result of the hospital’s adherence to parental autonomy. Detractors contend that to protect the child, the hospital ought to have adopted a more proactive posture and, in extreme cases, considered interfering against the desires of the parents (Albersheim, 2020). There are still unanswered questions about whether the hospitals made every effort to convince the parents that therapy was necessary. The case against the hospital’s conduct highlights the conflict between upholding autonomy and guaranteeing the welfare of a helpless kid, posing moral questions regarding how well the intuition was able to meet Baby Boy Doe’s urgent medical needs.
Conclusion
The Baby Boy Doe case highlights a severe moral conundrum with divergent viewpoints on medical treatment. Although praiseworthy, the hospital’s observance of ethical guidelines and respect for parental rights are criticized for possibly endangering the child. The complex interplay of moral concepts, such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and respect for persons, highlights the delicate issues in healthcare decisions. While the hospital’s activities are grounded in autonomy, they also emphasize the delicate balance between independence and protecting vulnerable individuals by raising concerns about the effectiveness of measures to ensure the child’s wellbeing.
References
Albersheim, S. (2020). The extremely preterm infant: ethical considerations in life-and-death decision-making. Frontiers in pediatrics, 8, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00055
Darr, K. (2011). Ethics in Health Services Management. (5th Edition). Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press, Inc.
Hentoff, N. (2020). The awful privacy of Baby Doe. In The Right to Die (pp. 380-386). Routledge.
write