Beauchamp and Childress’s principles

The patient’s decision to remove and sell one of his kidneys is crucial and necessitates expert examination. Before engaging in any activity, people must weigh the advantages and drawbacks that arise from it, according to Childress (1). The Beauchamp and Childress principle of beneficence, which emphasizes the significance of the kidney’s removal and sale, is one of the main techniques the doctor should employ in the scenario mentioned above. Nonetheless, there are certain inconsistencies in the application of the aforementioned idea. The advantages and difficulties related to the law of beneficence must therefore be balanced. Notably, the decision to remove and sell the kidney is necessary because it will help in the promotion and respect of the choices that a patient has made.

The removal of the kidney will be necessary as the organ will help in improving the health conditions of other personalities suffering from the kidney problems. Although the removal of the patient’s kidney is beneficial, an extensive analysis indicates that the procedure has some limitations. One of the primary challenges of the surgery above is the defiance of the policies regarding the donation and sale of the body organs. According to Childress (2), specification, which involves the consideration of the norms in a society, is also relevant and helps in the practical solution of a critical issue. Precisely, removing the kidney as in the case of the man who intends to sell it is against the norms of the society. Besides, the sale of body parts is an activity some communities perceive to be heinous.

An application of the principle of specification encompasses the papal encyclical evangelism vitae, thus requiring that people become cautious when basing their arguments on the law above to make a decision (Childress 4). Precisely, the specification principle focuses on the rules that warn people against killing, depriving individuals their freedom, causing pain, deceiving, and denying pleasure. Indeed, the rules mentioned above are critical in the code of nonmaleficence, which is essential in the course of making a bioethical decision (Childress 5). Therefore, in the case of the man and the doctor, the choice of removing and selling the kidney, which is against the law, is an act of disregard to the principle of nonmaleficence because the doctor will be disobeying the requirements of the nation, making the donor deprived of some pleasure. Besides, the removal of one of the man’s kidney shall amount to the doctor’s deception of others to ensure that government officials do not discover his actions and prosecute him.

From the analyses above, it is evident that the application of the principles of the specification is essential in the course of making a bioethical decision. However, some scholars have refuted the specification as they argue that it is vague and general thus does not efficiently help in solving a critical issue (Childress 5). For instance, in the case of the man who proposes the removal and sale of one of his kidneys, the application of the specification principle does not help in the sufficient identification of the type of pleasure that one need not deny another. Also, the specification principle will not be solely appropriate as it denies people the opportunity to engage in activities that are crucial for promoting life. In particular, one can survive with one kidney, and therefore, the man’s decision is essential for the doctor as a way of improving the health conditions of his patients.

An action that relates to bioethics also requires an individual to balance the moral norms concerning the execution of a given plan. Childress (5) argues that ranking of principles in a lexical order is an essential strategy that aids in the determination of the legal consequences of a particular activity. Moreover, it is imperative that one uses the maxims that guide the conduct of the society members to make a proper decision concerning a given bioethical operation (Childress 5). For instance, in the case of the man who intends to sell his kidney, it is essential for the doctor involved to analyze the legal provisions about the illegal removal and sale of body organs. A practical examination of the policies concerning the unlawful removal and disposal of organs will help the doctor to advise the patient accordingly and evade the lawsuits that may arise due to the violation of the policies on the ethical practices in the society. In reality, the analysis and ranking of principles concerning a given method help in the elimination of prosecutions like in the case where a patient sued a doctor for failing to implement a plan that would have led to the former’s death (Burton 4).

Beauchamp and Childress’ principle of balancing the moral norms also requires professionals to adhere to the comprehensive policies and rules regarding the execution of a given duty (Childress 6). Indeed, the consideration of the codes of a given practice will also play a critical role in the determination of the decisions one needs to make. Specifically, it will be appropriate for the doctor to remove and use the man’s kidney to help save the lives of other patients. The choice to remove the kidney will significantly reinforce the nursing code, which requires health professionals to make a critical decision that can help in the improvement of the welfare of the patients.

As previously discussed in this essay, the application of principle-based approaches is appropriate for the improvement of the conditions of patients and for making critical decisions. However, an analysis of the Beauchamp and Childress principles indicates that the rules are appropriate and necessary in the cases when the people interacting are intimates, not strangers (Childress 8). On the contrary, some situations that require bioethical decision-making involve strangers, thereby creating controversies on whether the application of principle-based decision-making strategies is sufficient. For instance, in the case of Baxter and Cowart, there was no intimacy between the doctor and the patient, and therefore, the latter could not efficiently apply the principle-based strategies to make a proper decision (Burton 3). Consequently, the doctor in the scenario above had to consult the patient’s relatives and lawyer, thereby infringing on the privacy of the patient.

In conclusion, the application of Beauchamp and Childress principles in the situation such as the case where a patient wants to remove and sell a kidney illegally reduces the ability of the professionals to efficiently make decisions by making bioethics degenerate into dilemmas and quandaries, while principle-based approaches significantly focus on what one perceives to be right. Therefore, from the analysis of the situations characterizing the bioethical issue between the doctor and the patient, it would be right for the latter to remove and use the kidney to help other patients.

Works Cited

Burton, Keith. A Chronicle: Dax’s Case as It Happened (Dax’s Case, Essays ..., L. Kliever, S. Meth.U.Pr. 1989, pp. 1-12), n.d. Print

Childress, F. James. Variety of Principle-Based Approaches, n.d. Print