Doctor-Patient Confidentiality Research Paper

Words: 1662
Pages: 7

Doctor-Patient Confidentiality
When people go to the doctor they go hoping to see a friendly face that can help and make whatever the situation may be a little better. Whether that involves getting medication for a cold or information on a life threatening disease, the patient needs someone they can trust to give them their best options. Without doctor-patient confidentiality the medical field would be lacking a big part of that trust that a patient requires. Through the utilitarian and deontological principles there are noticeable differences as to what should or should not be said behind closed doors. In relation to doctor-patient confidentiality utilitarian principles are better justified.
As mentioned above doctor-patient confidentiality
…show more content…
These principles in response to the utilitarian view disagree with the idea that consequences justify whether something is right or wrong. Kant believes that the ends do not justify the means and therefore, looking only at the consequence of the action does not indicate whether something is right or wrong. If the outcome of someone’s action ultimately brings the greatest amount of happiness possible but the action itself was wrong, then that does not make the situation morally right. For example, “A physician may administer a drug that kills a patient due to unknown and unforeseeable side effects. Though the outcome is disastrous, surely the physician does not act immorally” (15). In this case the consequence of the action had negative utility, therefore a utilitarian would say that the action was wrong and the physician is to blame. However, Kant says, the physician acted rightly and his intentions were to help the patient and therefore, the physician can not be blamed for the poor outcome. Kant’s main rule within deontological ethics is the categorical imperative. This rule implies that if not everyone can do this action that is in question, then it must not be right even if the action is not bad. Also, one cannot treat someone merely as a means, meaning less than human. Not everyone can steal therefore stealing is wrong. The utilitarian might then say, what if stealing ultimately helps someone and then results in ultimate happiness for everyone involved? Kant would simply say the action was wrong so the situation is not justified with deontological