Medical Ethics: The Case of Jane and Phyllis

The philosophical approach that seems to be appropriate for this case is Consequentialism/utilitarianism theory. This philosophical approach is concerned mainly with the outcomes of a particular action as the basis for judging whether the action is right or wrong. The consequentialist theory holds that the moral judgment about a given action can be determined from the consequences of the action. In respect of utilitarianism and consequentialism, a moral action will be one that produces the maximum good for all the subjects involved.

The Narrative Context

The narrator of this case is Anneke Lucassen, a clinical geneticist. The case comprises different stories that the clinical geneticist encountered in his profession while providing clinical services to different families. Anneke provides a collection of stories by different people all of which revolve around the same subject of breast cancer.

The given case involves a scenario in which different medical practitioners are in a state of dilemma on the best action to take following a medical conditions of two of their clients. An analysis of the possible consequences of the alternative actions to be taken by the practitioners can enable them make the appropriate decision.

The Ethical Dilemma

In this particular case, there are two main concerns to be considered. There is need to preserve the privacy or confidentiality of an individual by not revealing her medical condition to the relatives. On the other hand, the revelation of this medical condition may be of help to another relative who suspects to have a similar problem.

The controversy here is that in the event that the operation is performed while the victim was not affected, then it would have been a waste. If the first medical condition is not revealed, the other victim is likely to undergo an operation. Besides, it is not guaranteed the operation will completely prevent the occurrences of the medical condition in the victim’s lifetime. The analysis of all these outcomes can provide the practitioners with the best approach to resolve the dilemma.

Key Stakeholders and Perspectives

There is a story by Jane, her other family members have suffered and died of breast cancer. Jane is worried that the condition could be related to the genes in their lineage and that she may as well suffer the same. Her husband suggests that she seeks a medical intervention now that such thought disturbs her emotions.

There is also the story by Phyllis, an aunt to Jane who apparently is suffering the same problem. Phyllis is worried about the odds that she would encounter in the event that her condition is revealed to the other family members. In particular, she does not have good relation with Jane following a row with the latter’s mother before her death. Phyllis laments that she is fed up of being blamed for anything that is not in order in their family. She detaches herself completely from the family members and holds that the other family members have no business knowing her test results.

Coincidentally, Jane and Phyllis are attended to by close practitioners who can share ideas. The GP attending to Phyllis support her need for confidentiality even though this information can be of help to Jane. The oncologist’s story provides the developments that are being registered on genetics and oncology, and illustrates how the advances will prevent future similar dilemmas.

Comparison of Stakeholder Interests

The geneticist provides more details on such kinds of test and the information gathered from the stories provides the developments that are being registered on genetics and oncology. The analysis of all these outcomes can provide the practitioners with the best approach to resolve the dilemma.