Rules are set in place to maintain
order, and they are meant to be followed. It can be argued, however, that rules
are meant to be broken in certain cases. It can be difficult to determine which
set of communication ethics we should adhere to in certain, and sometimes
severe, cases. Communication Ethics
Literacy defines the praxis Codes, procedures, and standards as “guidelines
by which conduct is evaluated, protecting and promoting the good of corporately
agreed-upon regulations.” Most organizations have a code by which they follow
to ensure fairness, stability, and success amongst many other goals.
Communicative actions should stay within the bounds of an organization’s codes
because their rules are set in place to sustain their identity.
One part of this section of the
chapter that stood out to me was the ancient Hippocratic Oath, which still
remains in tact today. It requires that physicians “do not harm” their patients.
The American Medical Association sticks with this oath because it is their
ultimate goal to keep patients alive, so they strive to protect and promote
this written rule. While back in ancient Greece, the oath was up kept in order
for physicians to keep a clean reputation, it maintains in place today so that
doctors will do everything in their power to not kill their patient. However, this
oath can come across as a disdain for patients in extreme circumstances that do
not want to endure the physical and emotional turmoil of fatal diseases.
The Physician-assisted suicide creates
a fuzzy line for those who want to approach communication ethics through the
lens of codes, procedure, and standards, and those who want to approach it on a
contextual basis. A contextual approach to communication ethics supports the
recognition of different cultures, settings, and persons—going about
communication by means of the particular person or situation. This creates an
especially tough decision for doctors who want to protect and promote the oath
they have sworn to keep, and their lookout for the patients who want to die
with some dignity left. Though it is currently prohibited in most of the United
States, assisted suicide is a widely debated topic that has the potential to
become legal in the future, which would take a heavy weight off doctors’
shoulders and leave the decision entirely up to the patient.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCodes in which we follow is key to building a structural and sound environment for society. I think mentioning the contextual approach was very important within code regulations because it defines ethical approaches to different cultures while accommodating at the same time to an extent. The hippocratic oath is a great example as you pointed out. The lines between principles and practice can get blurry especially in times when healthcare practice various from culture to culture. There are obviously different practices in each culture, so how do we provide care without being bias and also following regulations? This is why we have laws.
ReplyDeleteI actually took a healthcare ethics class while finishing my associates degree and the physician assisted suicide was a "fuzzy" line for pretty much everyone in my class. I am glad you brought this up in your post because lines can being very fuzzy when determining if ethically a decision is pushing the line.You mentioned maintaining order which is the overall goal of each situation that arises and I think without order, then we would lose the value behind our standards.