Discussion Case 2

Abstract

Medical Care versus Religious Beliefs The utilitarian approach to bioethics offers the best alternative for physicians since they can weigh case by case to determine the risk of potential harm to patients. When the religious beliefs of a patient conflict with the recommendation doctors offer for treatment, it is necessary to review the merits of the case prior to making a decision. A patient that insists of receiving unnecessary care is one of the instances that healthcare providers may encounter in hospitals. It is important that they refer to each case to consider how the religious beliefs affect the care of the patient and conflict with a physician’s advice. The merits of the case could include the potential for harm and suffering for the patients and the impact on their psychological well-being. For instance, a physician should not force a patient to receive blood transfusion when such care contradicts their religious beliefs. By the utilitarian approach, the potential harm to the patient exceed the benefits of transfusing blood to a patients with some religious beliefs. Adopting the Kantian approach and respecting the wishes of the patient may lead to physicians causing greater harm than the benefits of care. Doctors should not perform CPR when such care contradicts medical evidence on the benefits it may offer patients. For a patient who needs blood transfusion and has refused such care, the physician should explain to their patient that they cannot offer such care since it does not improve their recovery. A utilitarian approach is more applicable to MacArthur’s case since weighing the benefits against harms is necessary for each patient’s case (Chukwuneke & Ezenwugo, 2022). The doctor’s medical knowledge and experience should contribute to the measures they take to causing no...