bIOETHICS REGARDING MEDICAL EMANCIPATION
Continuous controversies arise when the bioethics are tossed into the issue. The four bioethics include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Medical professionals try their best to balance morality and bioethics together, however, they sometimes contradict each other, which is when issues begin to arise and question what is right. Medical emancipation interferes with these four bioethics for the following reasons:
*Autonomy: The issue that arises with autonomy for medical emancipation is that every patient deserves a say in their own treatment, but should they make such a major decision on something so critical when they are a minor with underdeveloped brains? Many people argue that, "...adolescents are stuck in an ambiguous state of independence from childhood, but dependence of their parents when regarding lifetime responsibility," or ask questions like, "... why don't children ever have a voice," (Benefits of Medical Emancipation). Every patient deserves the right to their own medical treatment, but they are also a minor according to the law. Now, the problem contains either manipulating the law or not allowing them to decide on their medical treatment.
*Nonmaleficence: This states that there must be no harm to reach a beneficial outcome. Forced treatment that furthers pain goes against this bioethic, however it could result in serious consequences including death. Morality may argue that anything should be done to save a life, but nonmaleficence argues that if the costs are harmful they should not be put into action.
*Beneficence: This bioethic allows for doctors to benefit their patient. However, if a minor decides to become medically emancipated, they may not know what is truly best for them, and may need treatment to help them. This goes against beneficence, preventing the patient from benefitting further. However, not allowing the minor to decide on their treatment could also go against autonomy. The issue here is if following morals is best by doing everything possible to benefit the patient or to let the patient decide with no regards to their benefits.
*Justice: This means that medical treatment must be given to everyone, with no regards to age, race, or ethnicity. This bioethic plays a role in the debate regarding medical emancipation due to the fact that children are unable to decide on their medical treatment because of their age, and people may view this as discrimination of children. However, others may argue that the parents are obligated to make these important decisions for them, and that reaching the legal adult age would allow them to then qualify to decide on their own treatment as they become adults. The issue here is whether or not to listen to the law or to agree to justice.
For more information, go to:
https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/parent.html
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/Content%20Pages/fast_fact_bene_nonmal.htm
This video expresses the view of the children who want to become medically emancipated and their thoughts of having a voice:
*Autonomy: The issue that arises with autonomy for medical emancipation is that every patient deserves a say in their own treatment, but should they make such a major decision on something so critical when they are a minor with underdeveloped brains? Many people argue that, "...adolescents are stuck in an ambiguous state of independence from childhood, but dependence of their parents when regarding lifetime responsibility," or ask questions like, "... why don't children ever have a voice," (Benefits of Medical Emancipation). Every patient deserves the right to their own medical treatment, but they are also a minor according to the law. Now, the problem contains either manipulating the law or not allowing them to decide on their medical treatment.
*Nonmaleficence: This states that there must be no harm to reach a beneficial outcome. Forced treatment that furthers pain goes against this bioethic, however it could result in serious consequences including death. Morality may argue that anything should be done to save a life, but nonmaleficence argues that if the costs are harmful they should not be put into action.
*Beneficence: This bioethic allows for doctors to benefit their patient. However, if a minor decides to become medically emancipated, they may not know what is truly best for them, and may need treatment to help them. This goes against beneficence, preventing the patient from benefitting further. However, not allowing the minor to decide on their treatment could also go against autonomy. The issue here is if following morals is best by doing everything possible to benefit the patient or to let the patient decide with no regards to their benefits.
*Justice: This means that medical treatment must be given to everyone, with no regards to age, race, or ethnicity. This bioethic plays a role in the debate regarding medical emancipation due to the fact that children are unable to decide on their medical treatment because of their age, and people may view this as discrimination of children. However, others may argue that the parents are obligated to make these important decisions for them, and that reaching the legal adult age would allow them to then qualify to decide on their own treatment as they become adults. The issue here is whether or not to listen to the law or to agree to justice.
For more information, go to:
https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/parent.html
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/Content%20Pages/fast_fact_bene_nonmal.htm
This video expresses the view of the children who want to become medically emancipated and their thoughts of having a voice: