Your goal is to explain and defend the policy that medical professionals should follow when patients refuse major medical care that is recommended by health care professionals. (A different policy might apply to different kinds of patients.)
The main point of the assignment is to provide a comparison and contrast of deontology and rule consequentialism in relation to the moral principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. How do they guide policies regarding refusal of care?
Illustrate your understanding of the application of your recommended policy by comparing its application material given in Unit 2: the case of Emma Gough (see discussion topic 2.1) and the case of Elisha McCauley (see discussion topic 2.2). Discuss both of them equally in your paper.
First, explain what deontology is, and present and explain the deontological policy on patient autonomy. Be careful! There may be times when the general policy does not apply to a patient. What are the exceptions, and what policies should apply to them? After you explain the policy supported by deontology, use it to evaluate the Gough and McCauley cases. Did the medical professionals do the right thing in these cases?
Second, explain what rule consequentialism is, and present and explain the rule consequentialist policy regarding patient autonomy. After you do that, proceed to evaluate the two cases.(Warning: you aren’t discussing rule consequentialism if you’re only looking at the consequences for the various options on a case-by-case basis.)
Third, present your own position: should we adopt the deontological approach or the rule consequentialist approach to patient autonomy and refusal of treatment? (Defend one of the two approaches, explaining why one approach is morally better, and apply it consistently. You are being inconsistent if you apply deontology to one case and then consequentialism to the other.) Doing this satisfies criteria 8 and 9 of the grading rubric.
This is not a research paper. If you do any additional research for this paper, remember to cite your sources. This is not a paper about the legalities of the case. There is no reason to assume that the legal status of a medical policy in the U.S. is the morally appropriate one.
1600 words