Ethical Situation
Description
A Very Brief Description of the Source-The title of the article is “Towards an ethical theory in disaster situations” that is written by Pierre Mallia. The author presents different perspectives regarding the decision making of the health workers in scenarios where calamities or disasters occur, affecting a significant number of people. There are different views on the best action to take when either of the alternatives leads to the loss of lives, so the decision-maker has to choose the option having minimal damage. In some instances, the health care professionals select a choice that contradicts the deontological ethos and tend to focus on the general good of such an action. Mallia asserts that sometimes ethics cannot be integrated into all situations, and it is reasonable to make a decision that saves a high number of people at the cost of losing others. The deontological theory believes in the reason behind any choice rather than focusing on the resulting consequence. The author utilizes different theories in tacking the ethical situation. Two of the fundamental approaches concentrated on in the article include the utilitarian and deontology approaches. The article concludes that it is reasonable for the doctors to prioritize saving many lives during a disaster or a pandemic. The source is reputable and acknowledges different authors’ opinions to provide a comprehensive explanation of the ethical dilemma.
Explanation For Choosing The Source- Over the years, multiple disasters have occurred across the globe of different nature. The decision-makers are faced with significant challenges in determining the best course of action. Professionals responsible for saving peoples’ lives are presented with difficult choices that sometimes may infringe on their ethical provisions. Health care workers are essential in saving lives when a disaster happens, but there are some scenarios where the multitude affected calls for making a decision that might go against their work ethics. The article presents a perspective where employees working in hospitals are compelled to make hard choices that differ with their daily routine because of the nature of the problem. Currently, the world is undergoing the coronavirus pandemic where the health resources are overstretched because of the high number of people seeking for critical care services. One of the ethical dilemmas is deciding on the most appropriate way to handle the situation. Many nations across the globe have reported the inadequacy of ventilators that are vital to managing the Covid-19. Besides, the number of sick people needing comprehensive care exceeds the number of doctors available. The national leadership should come up with measures on how to handle the problem that will result in saving many people. It is imperative to acknowledge that individuals are still suffering from various conditions such as cancer, diabetes that might require the same facilities. Sometimes it might be challenging to decide on which patients need to be given priority when the health resources are overstretched. The article utilizes ethical theories such as the utilitarian and the deontology approaches in decision-making. Some situations call for taking bold measures that might seem unethical, but the consequence of such actions will always justify the means.
Analysis
The occurrence of disasters presents a complicated situation for health care workers. In their daily routine, they deal with individuals having different health problems, and they get adequate time to handle such conditions. When a disaster occurs, the priority shifts from addressing individuals’ needs to managing the situation to save as many lives as possible. Action is taken when such problems arise, ultimately determines the outcome of the interventions. The author presents different ethical choices available to the health professions. It offers a scenario where a health practitioner attending to a patient is called to respond to a disaster situation that would result in saving many lives (Mallia 2). Emergencies can prompt the moving for the doctor treating a patient to another location that has a high number of casualties. The determination of the right decision depends on the number of people capable of being saved. Such a move contradicts the ethical framework that guides the interaction of doctors with their patients. Utilitarian theory is applied in the situation because there is a significant focus on the greater good to the extent to flouting the existing provisions. Some problems, such as the emergence of a pandemic can call for prompt action to prevent any further spread. During the occurrence of a disaster, the health professionals usually are divided on the most appropriate ethical policy to apply in the situation. One of the critical assumptions in the case is the fact that the number of casualties exceeds the available health resources available. There will not be any need for transferring the health care professions when there are adequate doctors to attend to both the parties. Therefore, the only existing solution is to abandon one choice that has a minimal consequence for another.
The deontological perspective believes that the decision undertaken in all situations should be based on reason rather than feelings. Any action that is tied to affection does not amount to be moral. The author presents a case in which a parent fails to save six children nearby but ends up saving one who is far away because it’s his son. The action is immoral because it is based on emotion rather than reason, according to the theory (Mallia 5). The article further presents various cases of different circumstances where one is presented with a choice to end one life for the benefit of many people. The utilitarian approach primarily focuses on the consequence of the action taken by an individual. When a disaster occurs, doctors can sacrifice one life to save many people involved in the calamity. It may be a hard choice to make, but the health workers should understand that the failure to take such an action will lead to many deaths should be an adequate justification to adopt the utilitarian approach (Mallia 7). It is essential to understand that a disaster situation is different from the ordinary days where patients queue to see the doctors. While providing care, all people should be treated equally.
The author utilizes adequate data from various sources to provide a comprehensive explanation of why it is reasonable to make a decision that will ultimately save many lives. Moreover, there is the application of different scenarios that are aimed at providing insights on the issue. Arguments presented by Mallia are coherent and utilizes different writers’ perspectives to provide clarity. Besides, the author uses different primary theories to explain the fundamental aspects of the issue. People have different opinions regarding the best decision to make when faced with such a dilemma. However, it is vital to select an alternative that saves many lives. The information presented by the author is original, and it cites the arguments derived from various people. Mallia highlights different perspectives on the issue that provides valuable information on the ethical topic. There are some instances where an individual might be compelled to make a decision that minimizes the damage. A perfect example is the corona pandemic that has posed significant challenges to the global society. Health workers are at the center of managing the virus that has led to the death of people, and significant others are infected. It is reasonable to settle for choices that will save many people.
Work Cited
Mallia, Pierre. “Towards an Ethical Theory in Disaster Situations.” Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 1, 2015, pp. 3-11.