Ava Jones is a four-year-old girl with severe kidney failure. Severe kidney failure involves the gradual decline in the functioning of the kidneys and leads to the inability to filter waste from the blood (Johns, 2018). Ava's doctor has noticed that her ability to thrive is decreasing. His doctor says that without a kidney transplant in the near future, he will not be able to survive without a properly functioning kidney. The only chance of a successful transplant is about 90%, but only if the kidney is transplanted from a close relative who has a similar tissue type to Ava's. If a similar tissue type is not found, the transplant will most likely fail, even if the kidney comes from a close relative. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Implantation of a close relative without a similar tissue type would result in an equally unfavorable outcome as that of a cadaver with a non-similar paired tissue. Furthermore, if a cadaver had a similar tissue type, it would have a lower chance rate of a good tissue match than a close relative in the family. The doctor informed Ava's family, consisting of her parents and two older brothers, of the tissue type match, and they needed tests from her next of kin. Her family agrees to undergo a test to find the results for the best type of tissue for Ava's kidney transplant. The test showed that the excellent candidate for donation is Ava's father, all other tests of family members were found to be inadequate. The doctor is ready to call the family and give them the good news of the test results, but is interrupted by her father who wants to speak privately with Ava's doctor. She tells him the test results, but to her surprise he suddenly bursts into tears saying that he is afraid of donating his kidney. He continues to urge the doctor to tell his family that none of them are perfect donors and asks to begin the search for a body with a good match. Ava's best chance of survival from this kidney transplant is to receive a kidney from her father. The doctor believes that if she tells the man's wife, he will be convinced and ashamed to donate his kidney. She didn't want Ava's father to feel pressured into becoming a kidney donor for his daughter's implant surgery. In the case above, I, as a doctor, would have noticed the issue of divided loyalty between the patient's father and Ava. I need the whole family to be informed of the test results, not just the father. The result of telling the man's wife that any of the close relatives do not perfectly match his daughter's tissues is considered dishonesty. You must always remain sincere, especially as a healthcare doctor. It could be said that by telling the man's wife and Ava's family that the test results showed that no close relative is perfect for Ava's kidney implant, the father would not be forced by his will or shamed into becoming the kidney donor for your child. Daughter. Therefore, the solution is to work to find another type of compatible tissue and an available donor for Ava. According to the prima facie moral principle of autonomy, lying to the man's wife is justifiable because this principle protects Ava's father's body from being forced to become a donor. This would also benefit a close relative who would not risk their life to live without a kidney by donating it to Ava. On the other hand, one could argue that it is morally wrong for the doctor to be dishonest with his wifeof the man and Ava's family by not telling them the test results which show the perfect match of the father's tissues, according to the test results. By informing the family about Ava's father's fear of having kidney surgery, they could understand his feelings and possibly talk to him about it. Another thing to consider in this situation is that by donating your kidney, your daughter's life would be saved by receiving a new kidney implant; thus preserving a life for the next generation. Being professional is very important in the healthcare industry and for me as a doctor in this situation. An untrue result told to a patient could jeopardize their career. A second principle of autonomy is the principle of keeping promises. The promise-keeping principle is “In general, moral agents have obligations to keep their promises.” As a doctor, you have a moral obligation to keep my patients' medical records confidential. No matter who I show their data to, I must have the patient's permission to inform them. Otherwise, they must be kept confidential. As a doctor, I have this obligation to Ava and her father. Normative models are also intended to decide issues related to personal involvement and relationships between the patient and the doctor. The normative ethical theory of duty is an example; deontology is “rights and duties are justified regardless of consequential values”. There are two deontological theories; Kantianism and contractualism. Kantianism states that “an action is morally good only if it is motivated by the recognition that the action is a moral duty, and not by an inclination to desire.” Contractualism is “any of various theories that justify moral principles and political choices because they depend on a social contract that implies certain ideal conditions, such as the lack of ignorance or uncertainty”. In this situation Kantianism is more recognizable, because the doctor's action is morally good if he does not force Ava's father out of obligation to donate his kidney for his daughter's transplant. But this is also dangerous for Ava's health and benefit. Kantianism is only considered right or wrong without thinking about the consequences, while Utilitarianism considers the consequences. In this situation it is morally right to communicate the true test results to the family, rather than respecting the father's desire to hide the results due to his fears. Otherwise, she could endanger Ava's life by waiting for another perfect tissue match, but not respecting her father's wishes and concerns about the surgery. However, we still need to morally consider our two options; tell Ava's family the real test results or not. The first step in finding out which situation is the correct approach is through beneficence, a term that provides guidance to the doctor in deciding who benefits most. As a doctor, you have an obligation to do for patients what is of greatest benefit to them. Included in this approach is the opposite obligation of nonmaleficence or causing harm to others. The doctor is expected to do everything that helps improve and preserve Ava's life but also that of her father. By not telling Ava's family the test results, her father's life would have been preserved and Ava's search for a transplant partner would have continued. In this scenario, the doctor felt it was wrong to tell Ava's family the true test results, so her father was not ashamed of being the kidney donor. However, my main priority in this case is to Ava, the real patient, to whom I have a moral obligation. This also leads to the.