The Concept of Diversity, Autonomy, and Bioethics
Introduction
The concept of bioethics is critical since it assists in the study of ethical issues that often emerge from possible advances in medicine and biology. Bioethics is also considered to have a relationship in establishing moral concern based on the policy and practice in medicine. The main focus that is implied in the use of bioethics is the development or need to address inquiries on life sciences, biotechnology, medicine law, politics as well as philosophies that can be taught concerning the subject (May et al., 2018). Notably, understanding bioethics requires the knowledge of its principles to be put into consideration. The principles consist of justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, among others.
The concept of diversity is critical in health care to ensure services are provided to patients are fair and are accessible. Additionally, diversity in health care offers dignity and respect in the differences that can be experienced among the involved people in practice. The main issues that are addressed in diversity entail different cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles of different people. The concept of autonomy in medicine practice illustrates the right of competent adults to make their informed decisions regarding their medical care. Further, the principle that underlines the requirement to achieve autonomy is to seek consent before treatment takes place (Entwistle et al., 2010). Therefore, it is essential for health care providers to respect the autonomy of patients by providing them with relevant information to understand the benefits and risks involved in a given treatment and also to choose possible alternatives when necessary.
Challenges Involved
The concept and practice of diversity, autonomy, and bioethics in health care have benefits that can be experienced. However, some challenges are also being faced and need to be understood. The concept of autonomy in health care practice is facing some challenges, such as the development of relational accounts of autonomy. The relational accounts of autonomy state that the basic understanding of individual autonomy is shaped by the interpersonal relationships as well as broader social environments that influence the decisions to be made by a patient.
According to Entwistle et al. (2010), relational accounts often vary, but they emphasize the significance of autonomy for the interactions developed with other people and social-cultural systems. Additionally, relational understanding of autonomy focuses on accepting the pervasiveness of social influence, and on the other hand, they deemphasize independence in the long term. Diversity in health care is critical to understand different beliefs, cultures, and racial groups by health care providers. This assists in the delivery of quality care outcomes to the affected patients across the country. However, various challenges affect diversity in the health care system. These challenges consist of cultural competence, such as racial and ethnic beliefs that impact the delivery of care appropriately (Chattopadhyay, 2013). The other problem is the level of communication among different people. The practice of bioethics in health care is also vital in medicine and is also having challenges that often face. It addresses mainly questions relating to biotechnology in health, policies, and principles that needs to be practiced (Chattopadhyay, 2013). The allocation of medical resources is one of the challenges in bioethics that needs to be put into consideration. Limited resources in medical elements make it challenging to meet the needs of health care leading to irrational delivery of care (May, Lee, R. M & Evans, 2018). The critique of some practices is also considered to be a challenge experienced in bioethics. These practices consist of euthanasia, which is perceived in different perspectives by both health care professionals and society. Euthanasia is the practice in health care that is used to terminate the life of very sick patients to assist in relieving them from suffering. Such practices have developed mixed reactions towards the extent to which the medical system can be enhanced to signify a positive or negative concern (May, Lee, R. M & Evans, 2018).
Effective Approaches
The best approach to improve the challenges of autonomy involves the clinicians to understand the scope for action that exists in a given social context (Chattopadhyay, 2013). Substantially, this is because the exercise for autonomy recognizes but can be determined by the interpersonal and broader social relations and structure that can exert either more or less influence on the decision-making process. Managing these challenges of diversity requires essential to improve the quality of health care. Enhancing health literacy through the development of programs that capture universal or standard language is one of the ways to mitigate these issues (May et al., 2018). For instance, some of the agencies in the world have developed interventions to minimize the complexity of health care as well as increasing patient understanding of health information. They can also use a communication model such as LEARN or ESFT. Nonetheless, mitigating these challenges on bioethics can be managed through the development of universal policies that can assist in guiding the relationship of decisions to be taken by health care providers (May et al., 2018). Similarly, providing essential resources at the right time to improve the delivery of health care can also be useful to enable providers to deliver their services.
References
Chattopadhyay, S., & De Vries, R. (2013). Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics is an ethical imperative. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 16(4), 639-645.
Entwistle, V. A., Carter, S. M., Cribb, A., & McCaffery, K. (2010). Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of general internal medicine, 25(7), 741-745.
May, T., Lee, R. M., & Evans, J. P. (2018). Healthcare challenges faced by adopted persons lacking family health history information. Narrative inquiry in bioethics, 8(2), 103-106.
