Ethics In Medicine: Charlie's Doctors
Ha
Ethics are the morally right standards that humans have to follow. A person's ethics should be reasonable and well-founded. Charlie was a thirty-seven year old who had a very slow mind, which meant that he was dumb. Charlie had undergone a brain surgery to make himself smarter, but the question is...did Charlie's doctors act ethically when they performed the brain surgery on Charlie? Gordon's doctors did not act ethically when they performed the surgery to make him smarter.
Charlie's doctors didn’t ask themselves some of the questions in "Ethics in Medicine". If Gordon's doctors didn’t ask themselves these question and did not act upon them, then that shows why the doctors didn’t act ethically. One of the question that was asked was that …show more content…
In this case the incapacitated patient is Charlie. For this situation, a surrogate is someone who makes the decisions for the incapacitated patient, Charlie, because Charlie is not mentally capable for making situations for him or herself, he needs aa surrogate. The doctors didn’t even consider asking Charlie for a surrogate. Charlie made the decision by himself, not knowing the effects of the surgery. It is true that Charlie is a man in his late thirties, and people that age can make decisions, but his mental capabilities doesn't allow him to comprehend and understand the choices that are given to him.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath made in 1991 to show the working ethics of doctors and scientists. According to the Hippocratic Oath, it said, "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick". One of the doctors, Doctor Nemur, did the surgery experiment for praise for the scientific community and achievements. At the end of the story, I shows that Dr.Nemur only wants to show the benefits of the surgery, because he doesn’t want to have a bad reputation for failing this experiment. This shows that the doctors didn’t act ethically, because they didn’t act by the Hippocratic
Ethics are the morally right standards that humans have to follow. A person's ethics should be reasonable and well-founded. Charlie was a thirty-seven year old who had a very slow mind, which meant that he was dumb. Charlie had undergone a brain surgery to make himself smarter, but the question is...did Charlie's doctors act ethically when they performed the brain surgery on Charlie? Gordon's doctors did not act ethically when they performed the surgery to make him smarter.
Charlie's doctors didn’t ask themselves some of the questions in "Ethics in Medicine". If Gordon's doctors didn’t ask themselves these question and did not act upon them, then that shows why the doctors didn’t act ethically. One of the question that was asked was that …show more content…
In this case the incapacitated patient is Charlie. For this situation, a surrogate is someone who makes the decisions for the incapacitated patient, Charlie, because Charlie is not mentally capable for making situations for him or herself, he needs aa surrogate. The doctors didn’t even consider asking Charlie for a surrogate. Charlie made the decision by himself, not knowing the effects of the surgery. It is true that Charlie is a man in his late thirties, and people that age can make decisions, but his mental capabilities doesn't allow him to comprehend and understand the choices that are given to him.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath made in 1991 to show the working ethics of doctors and scientists. According to the Hippocratic Oath, it said, "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick". One of the doctors, Doctor Nemur, did the surgery experiment for praise for the scientific community and achievements. At the end of the story, I shows that Dr.Nemur only wants to show the benefits of the surgery, because he doesn’t want to have a bad reputation for failing this experiment. This shows that the doctors didn’t act ethically, because they didn’t act by the Hippocratic