“Morality requires not only that we treat persons autonomously and refrain from harming them, but also that we contribute to their welfare” (Beauchamp and Childress, 202). The principles of Beneficence states it is our duty to help others. Specifically, positive beneficence demands that we “provide positive benefits to others” ( 202). Consider the following case: Dr. Arman Asadour is a physician who works with a non-governmental organization or NGO. He is sent to South Sudan to help refugees who’ve arrived from a war. The people are in horrible conditions physically, mentally, and health wise. Cholera breaks outs in the town. The NGO that Dr. Asadour is a part of, set up a station that treats Cholera patients only. Those who have conditions other than Cholera have to be sent to the local hospital. The local hospital is already overcrowded. It is Dr. Asadour’s duty to help those with Cholera but is it his duty to help non-Cholera individuals as opposed to letting them to go to the hospital knowing the rule? (Thomas, Waluchow, and Gedge, 267).
One aspect to consider is how much help the local hospital can provide for individuals with other conditions. The local hospital is already overcrowded and the cost of transportation and medication are other factors that cause more problem. These refugees have no money so they cannot help cover transportation or their own medicine. Sending them to the local hospital is essentially letting them go to a space with scarce resources to die. Positive beneficence argues that we produce positive benefits to others. Transferring individuals to the local hospital does not provide benefits. Instead, there are negative outcomes because there is no guarantee that these individuals will get treated due to limited resources. There is no guarantee that these individuals will even get looked at the same day seeing as the hospital is overcrowded.
Dr. Asadour should help treat non-cholera persons because he holds the same obligation to them. These individuals do not have Cholera but they are sick and they need treatment.They can possibly die from their condition just like the people with Cholera. There is no guarantee that the local hospital can save them. A solution that will allow Dr. Asadour to help the others is for Dr. Asadour and the NGO to set up another work station for individuals with other conditions. This station will allow Dr. Asadour to persons in both categories. Beauchamp and Childress provided some rules for obligatory beneficence that are applicable to why Dr. Asadour should non-cholera. Some of the rules include: “prevent harm from occurring to others” and “remove conditions that will cause harm to others” (204). By deciding to treat them, Dr. Asadour is preventing harm from occurring to others meaning that the non-cholera individuals will not be able to spread their conditions to those at the hospitals nor will they get sick from others at the hospital. The other rule is the removal of conditions that will cause harm to others. Setting up another work station will separate the cholera and the non-cholera individuals. This separation removes the condition of exposure to the other.
Dr. Asadour should treat non-cholera persons because as a doctor, it is his duty to help others. By helping these individuals he is fulfilling the rules of beneficence. He is contributing to the welfare of these individuals and providing positive benefits.
Works Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Thomas, J. E., Waluchow, W. J., & Gedge, E. (2014). Well and good: a case study approach to health care ethics (4th ed.). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Hello Sandra,
Great post. You bring up very good points about positive beneficence and its implications in the medical field. I agree with your point that Dr. Asadour is obligated to help non-cholera patients because as a physician, it is his duty to help others. I believe that if he has the resources to help other patients, then it is only reasonable and right to treat them rather than to send them to a facility where they may not receive help.
However, I believe that this case also gets a bit complicated. If the station is specifically set up to treat cholera patients, how could non-cholera patients be treated. Resources would be used on people who don’t have cholera even though the station is meant to treat cholera patients. I believe that if there are enough resources to treat both cholera and non cholera patients, then by all means should Dr. Asadour treat them. However, if the resources are scarce, then Dr. Asadour should only treat cholera patients as that it the original purpose of the station where he works.
Hi Sandra,
I thought your post was very interesting. I agree with you that it would be beneficial for the non-cholera patients to make another workstation, but in the article it seemed as if Dr. Asadour would be working in the non-cholera patient workstation instead of the cholera workstation. If Dr. Asadour creates this workstation for the non-cholera patients, which workstation would be his obligation? In this sense I don’t think Dr. Asadour should personally be working this new work station because his primary obligation is to those with cholera. What do you think?
Morgan
Hello Sandra and Morgan,
Sandra — thanks for an interesting blog post! Your view on two different stations hadn’t yet crossed my mind.
Morgan — I agree with your comment in that Dr. Asadour should not work at the different work station.
One of my main observations of this case’s potential consequences was (I believe I’ve stated this in other comments, too) that the damages that the NGO and Dr. Asadour could incur from breaking protocol and treating non-cholera patients could harm many more patients down the road. The loss of funding due to a breach like this would most likely affect the health of a similar, if not greater, number of people and the NGO’s future plans and support. Do you think that treating patients is worth this risk? There is no good way out of this situation, and I think that minimizing the damage is the best way to approach it.
Thanks,
Elisabeth Crusey
Hi Morgan and Elizabeth,
Thank you for the comments!
I understand both of your points about Dr. Asadour helping only cholera patients.
What do you think should be done about the non-cholera patients considering the conditions at the local hospital? Should there be a different work station set up for them at all?
Ideally, yes, there should be a separate care facility for them. With restricted resources and personnel, however, this is probably not a valid possibility. The best, if not only, solution in my opinion is to bring the issues to the attention of the NGO and other sources in the hope that somebody will fill the need and provide a separate care facility for them.