 |
| Gilbert, Joseph. "ethics" 5/12/2009 via flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License. |
Who is involved in the controversy?
There are two very simple sides to this controversy: Those who believe the neonatal profession is justified in making whatever decisions they, as educated professionals, should see fit; and those who believe no human being has the right to decide the fate of a being who cannot yet express any reaction to medical stimuli.
Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?
The strongest force behind those against the profession, believing it to be unethical, is the general populace. There are no major figures speaking against neonatology; rather, it is a school of thought, argued by many.
Alternatively, doctors are the strongest speakers in favor of the neonatal unit. As there are thousands of doctors around the world who specialize in neonatology, it is impossible to identify any single person. However, there are journals explicitly targeting this issue. For example, the source I mentioned in my previous post on the evaluation of scholarly sources came from the Journal of Medical Ethics.
What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?
The public holds social, cultural and economic power over doctors. They, arguably, have more power over the controversy than even the doctors do. They are at the very center of the argument as they provide the neonatal profession with their patients.
The doctors undeniably hold political power. When it comes to the opinion of the doctor verses the distressed parent, the doctor is the more favorable source.
What resources are available to different positions?
Research is available and can be equally abused by both parties. There are examples both for and against the effects of neonatology. For example, though birth weights have become more regular with the emergence of the profession, pre-term births have become even more dire. At the core of the controversy, it is the word of the doctor against the word of the patients. Both have the same resources available to them, though both will choose to use them differently.
What does each group value?
Interestingly enough, each group values the same thing: Life. Doctors seek to save the lives of their patients through calculated risks and research. The public seeks to save the lives of their children through ethical reassurance.
What counts as evidence for the different positions?
Both groups have the evidence of research at their disposal. As with all medical specialties, doctors' efforts have both succeeded and failed. There are many causes of infant deaths which can be abused by those questioning the ethics of the field. There are also many that can be utilized by doctors as support of the ethical decisions made in the field.
Is there a power differential between the groups?
Though each side may claim differently, the parent/public arguably holds more power. Beneath all the medical decisions and facts, the doctors' viewings are mere suggestions to the parent. The parent holds all the power in the fate of their child (which may possibly be equally as unethical).
Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?
What does each group value?
Interestingly enough, each group values the same thing: Life. Doctors seek to save the lives of their patients through calculated risks and research. The public seeks to save the lives of their children through ethical reassurance.
What counts as evidence for the different positions?
Both groups have the evidence of research at their disposal. As with all medical specialties, doctors' efforts have both succeeded and failed. There are many causes of infant deaths which can be abused by those questioning the ethics of the field. There are also many that can be utilized by doctors as support of the ethical decisions made in the field.
Is there a power differential between the groups?
Though each side may claim differently, the parent/public arguably holds more power. Beneath all the medical decisions and facts, the doctors' viewings are mere suggestions to the parent. The parent holds all the power in the fate of their child (which may possibly be equally as unethical).
Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?
The acknowledged common ground is that the ultimate goal is to save the child. Neither group upholds their views to be "right." They do so to ensure that they have the means to most successfully save infants in the NICU.
Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond directly to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position?
To a certain extent, both groups MUST listen to each other. It is only possible for the parent to have come to their conclusion if they have an example as to why they would find what a doctor (trained to save lives) is doing that is "unethical." Similarly, doctors are required to listen to the parents, as any and all decisions are ultimately their choice. The two groups have face to face interactions daily.
Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond directly to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position?
To a certain extent, both groups MUST listen to each other. It is only possible for the parent to have come to their conclusion if they have an example as to why they would find what a doctor (trained to save lives) is doing that is "unethical." Similarly, doctors are required to listen to the parents, as any and all decisions are ultimately their choice. The two groups have face to face interactions daily.
No comments:
Post a Comment