Medical professionals working in the field of healthcare face various ethical dilemmas on a regular basis. One of the sources of such dilemmas is poverty among patients. A particular scenario of an ethical problem related to a patient in a state of poverty is the case of a patient suffering from a phobia. According to the doctor’s assessment, the best treatment for this person would be exposure therapy, and other kinds of treatment would not be sufficient for their case. However, this person lives far away from the establishments that could provide this kind of treatment. The patient cannot move or temporarily relocate closer to these facilities since their already insufficient income depends on them remaining in the original area.
This situation can be resolved in three distinctive ways, depending on the ethics code. First, prescribe exposure therapy as the most efficient measure. Second, prescribe a less effective therapy method as a result of consideration for their financial situation. Third, seek additional methods to resolve the issue, such as new medical technologies and crowdfunding. Ethics of rights would call for the patient to decide which way needed to be applied since it is their right to have freedom of opinion and expression. Care ethics would call for a search for a new solution that would allow the patient to both receive the necessary treatment and not disbalance their financial status (Rachels, 2003). Such a solution might come in the form of VR technology, which allows to virtually undertake the necessary, in this case, therapy measures. The costs of VR sets are not low; therefore, this method would require the social technology of crowdfunding.
The proposed solution might not be particularly practical since it would rely on garnering support from people, most likely strangers. Another way this solution is flawed is the matter of the patient’s consent. Many people have a bias against crowdfunding and asking for financial help since it reveals their vulnerability. For example, people who crowdfunded their fight with cancer described the experience as profoundly shameful (Ghazal et al., 2022). The ethics of rights is not a perfect strategy since the patient can easily opt for a solution that would hinder their recovery.
When employing new healthcare technologies, medical professionals should be wary of the ethical guidelines that are linked with the use of these devices. As the matter of this case deals with mental health, it is essential that it is approached with the utmost caution. There are certain issues that are connected with the employment of VR in the medical field. First, there is the matter of privacy, as due to possible hacking or malware, the patient’s data could be stolen. Second, certain malicious programs could disrupt the treatment process.
The ethical form of conduct with VR technology in healthcare is to explain in explicit detail to the patient the possible dangers of this device. Given the beneficial effects of this technological advancement, it should be allowed despite the adversities the patient might face from it. If the ethics of social contract were applied to this particular technology, they would stipulate that VR should be allowed for broad medical use if it is employed with specific protection measures. Social contract ethics rely on the foundation of mutual security and protection. This set of ethics implies an exchange between the government and its citizens (Rachels, 2003). Therefore, social contract ethics would demand placing this technology under the protection of governmental forces, although it might mean sacrificing certain privileges and rights, for example, privacy.
When employing crowdfunding, certain ethical guidelines need to be followed as well. In light of the continuous rise of crowdfunding campaigns, both for medical and business purposes, several prominent issues have been established. In the medical aspect, these issues are transparency regarding the donated funds, legitimization of the system’s failure to support those in need, and privacy invasion (Shneor, R., & Torjesen, 2020). In order to avoid or minimize these problems, specific guidelines should be imposed. Social contract ethics would require the government’s involvement in the matter of crowdfunding. First, it would call for the establishment of certain audits that would approve or deny applications based on their legitimacy. Second, they would have to provide appropriate rules that would ensure that the applicant does not disclose sensitive or unnecessary information. Third, these establishments would check the funds’ distribution post money received and be responsible for bringing the acts of policy infringements to the appropriate authorities’ attention. Fourth, the facilities would need to ensure that government agencies that could help the applicant’s case are mentioned during the application process to potentially redirect them toward more authorized sources.
In conclusion, the issue of healthcare and poverty is a serious one and requires a thorough understanding of several key components of ethics. Depending on the employed set of ethics, various solutions might present themselves in the case of inevitable moral dilemmas linked with a medical professional’s responsibilities. Therefore, when considering the appropriate ethical guideline, one has to review its benefits and potential detrimental outcomes.
References
Ghazal, L. V., Watson, S. E., Gentry, B., & Santacroce, S. J. (2022). “Both a life saver and totally shameful”: young adult cancer survivors’ perceptions of medical crowdfunding. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 1–10.
Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th ed. McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Shneor, R., & Torjesen, S. (2020). Ethical considerations in crowdfunding. In R. Shneor, L. Zhao, & B.T. Flåten (Eds.), Advances in crowdfunding (pp. 161–182). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.