After reading through this case a few times, I am still having trouble determining exactly how I feel about these questions...
I feel that it is the role of the physician to adequately inform the patient about the procedure and the outcome/results. It is up to the patient to take this information and understand what will happen. In this case, it is clear that the physician has fulfilled his role by explaining the necessary information to Greg and it seems that Greg too has fulfilled his role by understanding the information. At that point, I feel that the physician should perform the procedure as Greg has requested. Any future regrets lie on Greg not the physician as Greg knowingly made the decision to alter his body. The physician should not be held accountable for the "mistake" made by Greg because Greg was made aware of the outcomes. In the end, the physician fulfilled his role just as Greg has fulfilled his role as a patient.
To me, the only moral problem that arises in this case is the burden put on the physician by Greg by his choice. It is obvious that the physician wishes that Greg would not follow through with the procedure but Greg chooses too anyway. As such, there is a (potential) burden placed on the physician as he might feel responsible for negatively affecting Greg's life in the future.
I agree with burden being placed on the physician -- because although it is their job to do what the patient wants (no matter how hard it may be), they still are human beings and are affected by their choices they make in their careers as well. It would be hard for a man older than Greg (who may or may not have a family of his own) to see him cut out such a vital part of his life, just because he momentarily thinks he may never need it. It seems as if it affects Dr. H more than Greg? If I was in Dr. H's position, I would feel as if I took away a future piece of Greg's life.
I believe that although it is a tough decision for Dr. H, it is his job to do the procedure as Greg has asked. He has explained the potential consequences that Greg could face in the future, if he were to get married and want children. We tend to let our personal thoughts and emotions obstruct our view of what is plain and simply right. We think that if Greg falls in love and decides to have children in 10 years, that he will regret his decision; while this may end up true, that's HIS decision to regret, not Dr. H's.
As for the "morally problematic" aspect of it, I believe that Dr. H does not agree with what Greg wants. Because Greg is 25 and in the prime of his life, he may not want kids and he may not want any woman he's with to have to "deal" with contraception but in this case he is selling himself short. His decision for his life now will affect his future self, and Dr. H knows this. He makes a comment specifically about the contraception, but in most cases women would be glad to use this knowing that one day they could stop and have children -- Greg is taking this option away from them without their permission if he decides to go through with his vasectomy.
Maybe if the circumstances were different. Maybe if Greg was married and in his mid to late thirties and his and his wife's jobs did not allow time to raise a family, I could understand. But Greg is too young to make such a large decision.
Hi Sham. I agree that not only is Greg taking away options for himself, but he is taking potential decisions away from his next spouse (assuming he gets one).... What if she would like to have children? That decision is gone. But I will also say that everyone has certain fundamental rights, no matter the background.
I will start out by saying that I agree with everyone so far. Dr. H should follow through with the procedure because that is his job, but I also think he too has the right to invoke thought in this man to reconsider the procedure. However, it is ultimately the patient's decision and questioning the decision didn't seem to sprout any overwhelming doubts in the 25 year old. So, yes. The procedure should occur, and the patient's potential regret should only affect the patient.
In terms of the second question, it seemed better to me to analyze what Greg was really asking of??? We are taking a situation in which a young patient has requested that he no longer maintain the ability to reproduce. What I find problematic is that Greg is focusing on the outcome rather than the intention. Let's compare this to an abortion - he is making the decision to focus on his necessities by sterilizing parts of the reproductive region. Because this is at a young age, how would he know what he truly wants until he gets to the temporal point of weighing out having children in his life? He is asking someone else to take away this ability for him, thus his desired outcome requires that Dr. H be the one to never let him have children, when in fact he has plenty of time to change his mind. Why the procedure now?
I must first say that I completely understand and support Dr. H's reservations. Working at a doctor's office myself, I have often heard the physicians I work for say that they refer patients only to specific surgeons because they know that these surgeons will "say no" if they feel surgery is not appropriate for that patient's case. This is a trait that is much respected in medicine, especially since there are so many surgeons who will operate anyway to make money. However, a Vasectomy is much different from the very invasive spine surgeries the patients at my office would be undergoing. When you think about it, a Vasectomy is always voluntary. There has never been an emergency vasectomy. Even cancer patients that are sterilized in surgery do not actually have a vasectomy with the intent of sterilization. They actually have most or all of the sex organ removed in order to remove cancer, and thus become sterile as a by-product. A vasectomy is done solely at the request of the patient for the purpose of voluntary sterilization. As a physician, Dr. H is obligated to assist Gregory in making an informed consent. Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines informed consent as "consent to surgery by a patient or to participation in a medical experiment by a subject after achieving an understanding of what is involved." He has informed the patient of the risks and benefits (including emotional ones) of the procedure. If the patient wishes to continue, the physician must do so. It is never for the medical professional to decide for a patient what is burdensome treatment.
Of course, you cannot really assess this case without considering if there is a moral component. If the procedure to be performed was in fact immoral, then the physician would have the obligation not to perform it. With the treatment in the case, as I said earlier, the procedure is almost always performed at a patient's request solely for the purpose of sterilization anyway. Thus, why is it up to the doctor whether or not the patient is ready to make that decision, based on whether that patient has had or has not had children yet? The procedure may affect the patient's future wife, indeed. However, since he does not have a wife today, there is nothing immoral about the patient deciding to become voluntarily sterile if he feels children will not be a part of his lifestyle. This may make his future spouse sad, but one cannot say it is immoral simply because the decision disappoints someone else. The decision would have to affect the physical body of another person before their opinion could be considered in the morality of said decision.
Cody! What you said about all vasectomies being voluntary is so true and I didn't even think about that! Dr. H is a urologist! He is a specialist of a branch of medicine that focuses on the surgical and medical diseases of the male and female urinary tract system AND THE MALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS. Urologists are generally the specialists to perform vasectomies, so I don't see why Dr. H would question Gregory's reasoning since, like you said, vasectomies are almost always voluntary. Weird...
I think the way Dr. H approached Gregory and his request was a good tactic. Even though I think Dr. H should still perform the procedure, I also think it was smart of him to ask Gregory to rethink his decision. I think the fact that Dr. H questions the procedure shows that he cares about his patients and wants what is best for him. His concern ensures that Gregory will receive all of the necessary information to backup his decision.
I think the only moral problem in this case is the fact that Gregory is putting a lot of pressure on Dr, H and asking him to do something that he isn't comfortable with due to the fact that Gregory is so young. Gregory doesn't know what his future holds, he doesn't know if he will get married to a woman who wanted a child. His decision puts Dr. H in an unnecessary tight spot that could be avoided if Gregory waited to see what comes of his life.
Hey Becca!! So I agree with how Dr. H doesn't have a choice in Gregory's decision and the fact that he decided to inform Gregory of his decision. I also like how you mentioned that Dr. H needs to treat his patient's wishes and their decision. It shows that they are able to do their job objectively and not have a biased opinion on the patient and their decision.
Hey Becca!! I like how you tied in Kantian Ethics into this case and I feel like you made a really good point when you said his concerns are with a hypothetical situation. My question to you is this, why can't a doctor turn down a patient out of fear of the potential consequences? Especially when the medical procedure is not a life saving one?
After reading through this case a few times, I am still having trouble determining exactly how I feel about these questions...
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is the role of the physician to adequately inform the patient about the procedure and the outcome/results. It is up to the patient to take this information and understand what will happen. In this case, it is clear that the physician has fulfilled his role by explaining the necessary information to Greg and it seems that Greg too has fulfilled his role by understanding the information. At that point, I feel that the physician should perform the procedure as Greg has requested. Any future regrets lie on Greg not the physician as Greg knowingly made the decision to alter his body. The physician should not be held accountable for the "mistake" made by Greg because Greg was made aware of the outcomes. In the end, the physician fulfilled his role just as Greg has fulfilled his role as a patient.
To me, the only moral problem that arises in this case is the burden put on the physician by Greg by his choice. It is obvious that the physician wishes that Greg would not follow through with the procedure but Greg chooses too anyway. As such, there is a (potential) burden placed on the physician as he might feel responsible for negatively affecting Greg's life in the future.
I agree with burden being placed on the physician -- because although it is their job to do what the patient wants (no matter how hard it may be), they still are human beings and are affected by their choices they make in their careers as well. It would be hard for a man older than Greg (who may or may not have a family of his own) to see him cut out such a vital part of his life, just because he momentarily thinks he may never need it. It seems as if it affects Dr. H more than Greg? If I was in Dr. H's position, I would feel as if I took away a future piece of Greg's life.
DeleteI believe that although it is a tough decision for Dr. H, it is his job to do the procedure as Greg has asked. He has explained the potential consequences that Greg could face in the future, if he were to get married and want children. We tend to let our personal thoughts and emotions obstruct our view of what is plain and simply right. We think that if Greg falls in love and decides to have children in 10 years, that he will regret his decision; while this may end up true, that's HIS decision to regret, not Dr. H's.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "morally problematic" aspect of it, I believe that Dr. H does not agree with what Greg wants. Because Greg is 25 and in the prime of his life, he may not want kids and he may not want any woman he's with to have to "deal" with contraception but in this case he is selling himself short. His decision for his life now will affect his future self, and Dr. H knows this. He makes a comment specifically about the contraception, but in most cases women would be glad to use this knowing that one day they could stop and have children -- Greg is taking this option away from them without their permission if he decides to go through with his vasectomy.
Maybe if the circumstances were different. Maybe if Greg was married and in his mid to late thirties and his and his wife's jobs did not allow time to raise a family, I could understand. But Greg is too young to make such a large decision.
Just my personal opinion :)
Hi Sham. I agree that not only is Greg taking away options for himself, but he is taking potential decisions away from his next spouse (assuming he gets one).... What if she would like to have children? That decision is gone. But I will also say that everyone has certain fundamental rights, no matter the background.
DeleteI will start out by saying that I agree with everyone so far. Dr. H should follow through with the procedure because that is his job, but I also think he too has the right to invoke thought in this man to reconsider the procedure. However, it is ultimately the patient's decision and questioning the decision didn't seem to sprout any overwhelming doubts in the 25 year old. So, yes. The procedure should occur, and the patient's potential regret should only affect the patient.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the second question, it seemed better to me to analyze what Greg was really asking of??? We are taking a situation in which a young patient has requested that he no longer maintain the ability to reproduce. What I find problematic is that Greg is focusing on the outcome rather than the intention. Let's compare this to an abortion - he is making the decision to focus on his necessities by sterilizing parts of the reproductive region. Because this is at a young age, how would he know what he truly wants until he gets to the temporal point of weighing out having children in his life? He is asking someone else to take away this ability for him, thus his desired outcome requires that Dr. H be the one to never let him have children, when in fact he has plenty of time to change his mind. Why the procedure now?
I must first say that I completely understand and support Dr. H's reservations. Working at a doctor's office myself, I have often heard the physicians I work for say that they refer patients only to specific surgeons because they know that these surgeons will "say no" if they feel surgery is not appropriate for that patient's case. This is a trait that is much respected in medicine, especially since there are so many surgeons who will operate anyway to make money. However, a Vasectomy is much different from the very invasive spine surgeries the patients at my office would be undergoing. When you think about it, a Vasectomy is always voluntary. There has never been an emergency vasectomy. Even cancer patients that are sterilized in surgery do not actually have a vasectomy with the intent of sterilization. They actually have most or all of the sex organ removed in order to remove cancer, and thus become sterile as a by-product. A vasectomy is done solely at the request of the patient for the purpose of voluntary sterilization. As a physician, Dr. H is obligated to assist Gregory in making an informed consent. Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines informed consent as "consent to surgery by a patient or to participation in a medical experiment by a subject after achieving an understanding of what is involved." He has informed the patient of the risks and benefits (including emotional ones) of the procedure. If the patient wishes to continue, the physician must do so. It is never for the medical professional to decide for a patient what is burdensome treatment.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you cannot really assess this case without considering if there is a moral component. If the procedure to be performed was in fact immoral, then the physician would have the obligation not to perform it. With the treatment in the case, as I said earlier, the procedure is almost always performed at a patient's request solely for the purpose of sterilization anyway. Thus, why is it up to the doctor whether or not the patient is ready to make that decision, based on whether that patient has had or has not had children yet? The procedure may affect the patient's future wife, indeed. However, since he does not have a wife today, there is nothing immoral about the patient deciding to become voluntarily sterile if he feels children will not be a part of his lifestyle. This may make his future spouse sad, but one cannot say it is immoral simply because the decision disappoints someone else. The decision would have to affect the physical body of another person before their opinion could be considered in the morality of said decision.
Cody!
DeleteWhat you said about all vasectomies being voluntary is so true and I didn't even think about that! Dr. H is a urologist! He is a specialist of a branch of medicine that focuses on the surgical and medical diseases of the male and female urinary tract system AND THE MALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS. Urologists are generally the specialists to perform vasectomies, so I don't see why Dr. H would question Gregory's reasoning since, like you said, vasectomies are almost always voluntary. Weird...
I think the way Dr. H approached Gregory and his request was a good tactic. Even though I think Dr. H should still perform the procedure, I also think it was smart of him to ask Gregory to rethink his decision. I think the fact that Dr. H questions the procedure shows that he cares about his patients and wants what is best for him. His concern ensures that Gregory will receive all of the necessary information to backup his decision.
ReplyDeleteI think the only moral problem in this case is the fact that Gregory is putting a lot of pressure on Dr, H and asking him to do something that he isn't comfortable with due to the fact that Gregory is so young. Gregory doesn't know what his future holds, he doesn't know if he will get married to a woman who wanted a child. His decision puts Dr. H in an unnecessary tight spot that could be avoided if Gregory waited to see what comes of his life.
Hey Becca!!
ReplyDeleteSo I agree with how Dr. H doesn't have a choice in Gregory's decision and the fact that he decided to inform Gregory of his decision. I also like how you mentioned that Dr. H needs to treat his patient's wishes and their decision. It shows that they are able to do their job objectively and not have a biased opinion on the patient and their decision.
Hey Becca!!
ReplyDeleteI like how you tied in Kantian Ethics into this case and I feel like you made a really good point when you said his concerns are with a hypothetical situation. My question to you is this, why can't a doctor turn down a patient out of fear of the potential consequences? Especially when the medical procedure is not a life saving one?