Question

Your response must be at least 5 paragraphs.

Case 7-2 regards lying to a patient in order to help her get off of sleeping pills that she is addicted to. She believes wrongly that she cannot sleep without the pills and presumably the doctor cannot convince her otherwise. So he arranges with the Pharmacist to have her sleeping pills replaced slowly with placebos without her knowledge. Mrs. Abrahams then does benefit from the deception because she is able to sleep with the placebo by the time the titration is finished. This is a conflict between medical paternalism and truth-telling. Legally he is in the wrong but ethically he is doing something that really does benefit the patient. The Pharmacist is also in the wrong for charging the woman for placebo and mislabeling the prescription. There are violations of law all over this case. Yet, it is benefiting the patient because of the unique circumstances of the patient. Do you think the doctor and the Pharmacist are doing the right thing or the wrong thing? If you believe they are doing the wrong thing what should they do instead? If it is the right thing, how do you justify violating the law? Our authors distinguish between outright lying and failing to tell the whole truth. That certainly is a valid distinction but is this a case of not telling the whole truth or is it a case of outright lying? How do you think Mrs. Abraham would feel if she found out? Do you think she would be thankful or would she sue? What moral theories or principles would you appeal to?

Answer 1

Yes, according to me, what the doctor and the pharmacist done is the right thing. The patient in ordr to get the sleep, she is addicted to the sleeping pills. she believes strongly that she cannot get sleep, in order to avoid that she consults doctor. Firstly if she is comfortable with the taking of sleeping pills to get sleep, she will not consult the dostor. She consulted doctor to get rid of the addiction. First point she trusted doctor that he will treat her and get rid away from this addiction.

Of course, we can say that it is a kind of violating law, but until and unless it is not detrimental to the patient or not having side effects, doctors have the full rights in curing the patients according to their treatment. Here the pharmacist didnt give her something harmful, it is just replaced by placebo, may be they can be vitamin tablets or others.

speaking about outright lying and failing to tell the truth, is absolutely correct method to treat some psychological problems, which are totally related to mindset or mind thinking or the behaviour. In this case the dostor and the pharmacist has lied to the patient without telling her the truth the sleeping pills are being replaced. She psychologically fixed that until she takes the pills she cannot get sleep. though she starts taking placebos she started to sleep. Gradually the intake will be reduced and finnally comes to zero where the patient can sleep without sleeping pills.

Mrs. Abraham would definetly feel happy for it because any addiction which can be treated without any side effects will be always appreciable. She would definetly thank the doctor and the pharmacist.

the moral or the principle of the concept is that until and unless it is ethical there is no probelm.