Title

HEA 260 Medical Ethics

Presenter Information

Kaelyn Spowart

Presentation Format

Poster Presentation

Abstract/Description

The introduction to medical ethics course at Murray State University discussed ethical issues in our healthcare system, clinical practice, and research providing insight on issues of practical and philosophical importance for all members of our society (Terry, 2018). One of the ways communication occurs to the general public is through media channels and other social media sites. Students were to find medical ethics cases within the past 6-months (March/April 2018 to October 2018) to apply the course material from a media source of their choice. Analysis of the media source was conducted using a newspaper analysis methodology.

While researching cases, I stumbled upon an article describing a gynecological mesh designed by Boston Scientific, a manufacturer withholding a positive reputation when it comes to their pacemakers, stents and other medical devices. This gynecological mesh seemed like a beneficial creation, as surgeons use this device like a sling to relieve urinary incontinence and to lift any organs that might shift during and after pregnancy. All seemed to be going well until Boston Market attracted 48,000 lawsuits claiming that the mesh can “inflict life altering pain and injury” (Pelley).

When breaking this article down, a major theory that stood out to me was Kantian Ethics or Deontology. This is the universal idea that you believe everyone else should follow. Boston Scientific reassured the media that these gynecological meshes were properly tested and has all the required papers to ensure it. Though they faced thousands of lawsuits, they never once 2 believed the complaints. They were following the theory of deontology because they believe that their creation is the right decision for all women, and it should still be implanted regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

Beneficence was the major principle that I gathered from the article, as well. This has to do with any act that is not meant to cause any harm and is done for the benefit of others. This can be seen ironically, too. Though Boston Scientific did not get a good reputation from their creation, I do believe that their morals were pure. I feel that they created this sling to help women, but unfortunately it did not come across this way nor did they consider all of the factors that they should have.

As for the final category, the concept that seemed most prominently violated was short term versus long term. The gynecological mesh seemed like a remotely positive creation, until the lawsuits reached the media and the light flashed the ugly side of it all. To begin, Boston Scientific did not consider the long term effects on a woman’s body when producing the sling. The plastic that was used was not medically safe and can cause even larger issues when left for forty to sixty years, as it is designed to do. The physicians who agreed to insert this into the women was also not considering the long term effects, as they were lacking complete information of the gynecological mesh in the first place. Inserting this would get their job done faster and a nice paycheck in the near future. Boston Scientific did not seem to care for the well-being of other females when the original material was switched, either.

I believe that this article is a fantastic example of a medical ethics debate, but it could also hinder the study of concepts, principles and theories. There were countless examples of each that were so obviously violated, that it seems difficult to present it to others. This article requires 3 readers to look at all possible viewpoints and to see the good in all of the negatives. Medical ethics has taught me that there is no right or wrong answer and nothing is guaranteed. This article proves that everything is based on how the individual comprehends it.

Fall Scholars Week 2018 Event

HEA 260: Medical Ethics in the Media

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

HEA 260 Medical Ethics

The introduction to medical ethics course at Murray State University discussed ethical issues in our healthcare system, clinical practice, and research providing insight on issues of practical and philosophical importance for all members of our society (Terry, 2018). One of the ways communication occurs to the general public is through media channels and other social media sites. Students were to find medical ethics cases within the past 6-months (March/April 2018 to October 2018) to apply the course material from a media source of their choice. Analysis of the media source was conducted using a newspaper analysis methodology.

While researching cases, I stumbled upon an article describing a gynecological mesh designed by Boston Scientific, a manufacturer withholding a positive reputation when it comes to their pacemakers, stents and other medical devices. This gynecological mesh seemed like a beneficial creation, as surgeons use this device like a sling to relieve urinary incontinence and to lift any organs that might shift during and after pregnancy. All seemed to be going well until Boston Market attracted 48,000 lawsuits claiming that the mesh can “inflict life altering pain and injury” (Pelley).

When breaking this article down, a major theory that stood out to me was Kantian Ethics or Deontology. This is the universal idea that you believe everyone else should follow. Boston Scientific reassured the media that these gynecological meshes were properly tested and has all the required papers to ensure it. Though they faced thousands of lawsuits, they never once 2 believed the complaints. They were following the theory of deontology because they believe that their creation is the right decision for all women, and it should still be implanted regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

Beneficence was the major principle that I gathered from the article, as well. This has to do with any act that is not meant to cause any harm and is done for the benefit of others. This can be seen ironically, too. Though Boston Scientific did not get a good reputation from their creation, I do believe that their morals were pure. I feel that they created this sling to help women, but unfortunately it did not come across this way nor did they consider all of the factors that they should have.

As for the final category, the concept that seemed most prominently violated was short term versus long term. The gynecological mesh seemed like a remotely positive creation, until the lawsuits reached the media and the light flashed the ugly side of it all. To begin, Boston Scientific did not consider the long term effects on a woman’s body when producing the sling. The plastic that was used was not medically safe and can cause even larger issues when left for forty to sixty years, as it is designed to do. The physicians who agreed to insert this into the women was also not considering the long term effects, as they were lacking complete information of the gynecological mesh in the first place. Inserting this would get their job done faster and a nice paycheck in the near future. Boston Scientific did not seem to care for the well-being of other females when the original material was switched, either.

I believe that this article is a fantastic example of a medical ethics debate, but it could also hinder the study of concepts, principles and theories. There were countless examples of each that were so obviously violated, that it seems difficult to present it to others. This article requires 3 readers to look at all possible viewpoints and to see the good in all of the negatives. Medical ethics has taught me that there is no right or wrong answer and nothing is guaranteed. This article proves that everything is based on how the individual comprehends it.