Introduction Dr. Clare Gamble’s belief that forty-year-old Susan Kang should not have a mammogram because it is not proven to produce beneficial results or may cause unnecessary harm to her is a morally rational and well-informed decision made to protect her patient’s welfare; however, she should not go as far as violating her autonomy by denying her a mammogram. This paper will provide an overview on the topic of mammography, an analysis of Dr. Gamble and her patient’s situation, and an objection that one may have to the thesis of this paper.
Presentation of Topic A mammogram is an extremely controversial and highly debated diagnostic tool for breast cancer. Mammography is currently the only scientifically endorsed method to screen for…show more content… Gamble considered the considered the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence when she vocalized her well-intentioned opinion as an educated doctor to her patient, Susan Kang. She referred to evidence that indicated a mammogram would not be best for her patient’s situation as a forty-year-old woman with no family history of breast cancer. Her motive was to inform Kang of the realities of such a medical test and prevent her from enduring unnecessary testing, stress, and harm. Munson states, “many women believe they are at a greater risk for the disease than they” (736). Thus, she advised her patient to consider the harmful effects associated with a mammogram to ensure her patient made the best decision for her health. In actuality, mammograms produce false positives thirty percent of the time in women ages forty to fifty (Munson 738), and “for every 10,000 women getting an annual mammogram, three or more might develop breast cancer as a result of the exposure to radiation” (Munson 738). Therefore, Dr. Gamble was merely working in accordance with the principle of nonmaleficence. Ronald Munson states, “… [it] tells us to avoid needless risk and, when risk is an inevitable aspect of an appropriate diagnostic test or treatment, to minimize the risk as much as is reasonably possible” (893). Understanding this information, one could say that a mammogram for Susan Kang is
