Fatemeh Doomanlo, Amirhosin Khodaparast,
Volume 6, Issue 1 (4-2013)
Abstract
Professionals who provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) services may be approached by patients who have no chance of success of treatment, or can even be harmed during the requested futile treatment. In such cases, what is the moral duty of those who provide treatment services, in particular the physicians? Does the mere request on the part of the patient free the doctor from his/her professional moral responsibilities? On the one hand, principles of individual autonomy and beneficence require the doctor to provide the patient with necessary treatments regardless of the results and consequences. On the other hand, the principle of non-maleficence requires the physician not to impose any harm on the patient. In addition, due to the limitation of resources, doctors are obliged to allocate them to those patients who have a better chance of recovery and use them in cases in which the probability of resource waste is low. However, does this sit well with the principle of justice, especially where the patient is willing to pay all the costs of his/her treatment? Whose interest does the doctor have to prioritize, the patient’s, that of the child resulting from ART, or the society’s? Given the above points, moral training of the team providing treatment services seems necessary so that they acquire the essential skills to make the right decisions in difficult situations such as those mentioned above.
Neda Yavari, Alireza Parsapoor,
Volume 10, Issue 0 (3-2017)
Abstract
Increasing attention to individual liberties in last decades, has led to considering respect to patients autonomy and involvement in making medical decisions as a critical ethical principle. In spite of a general emphasis on the Importance of the mentioned principle, there is a wide controversy about the logical limitations of respect to patients' wishes and preferences in medical decision making. While a significant number of theoreticians believe in necessity of considering rigid limitations for respect to patients' autonomy, others emphasize on respect to patients' absolute and unconditional right of self-determination. This article explains and analyzes each group's main arguments and finally suggests a functional and logical approach to the principle. This method helps avoidance of disadvantages of unconditional respect to patients' preferences while considering autonomy as an important ethical maxim.
