Three Objection: Principle Of Nonmaleficence

Three Objection Student’s Name: Student’s Number: Institution: Argument from Research Task 5 Premise 1: If when the physicians gave Ms. Z oxycodone drug as a treatment for her condition, the benefits on its usage did not outweigh the harm caused by the drug then it was wrong. (According to the principle of nonmaleficence). Premise 2: When the physicians gave Ms. Z oxycodone as a treatment for her condition, the benefits on its usage did not outweigh the harm caused by the drug. Conclusion: It was wrong for the physicians to administer oxycodone drug on Ms. Z. Argument: According to the principle of nonmaleficence, administration of oxycodone, an opiate, to Ms Z was morally wrong. The reason is because from the case study, the drug led to such health complications as addiction and an intense withdrawal characterized by unhappiness, general anxiety and an acute depression. The administration of the drug also led to problems in her social life since the moment she stopped the drug, she started neglecting and associating negatively with her family members and co-workers (Fischer et al., 1999) Possible Objection 1 Someone might argue that Premise 1 is false. The actual implication of Premise 1 is that the opiate drug has no benefits at all since its harmful effects outweigh its benefits. However, one might argue that the drug has several benefits which include relieving mild to acute and shooting pain, called paroxysmal pain. The individual might also argue that oxycodone is highly prescribed to patients in the later stages of cancer disease. Response to Objection 1 Paying close attention to the situation of Ms. Z, it is clear that the pain in her heath condition could have been relieved by any other pain-relieving drug or anti-biotic other than oxycodone. This is because the pain was not sharp and acute enough to be prescribed the opiate drug. The administration of the drug instead left her addicted, desperate, lonely and harmed (Jacobson, 2015). Counter Response Well, it cannot be argued that the drug did not entirely help her. The doctor knew exactly the reason for the prescription and the harmful effects of the drug. The doctor also knew the right amounts of the drug to be prescribed to a single patient but what Ms. Z did wrong was accepting to take Oxycodone whenever she felt pain and in order to comfort her terminal condition. This in turn led to addiction and other harms associated with withdrawal. Possible Objection 2 One might at first agree with the principle of nonmaleficence that people should act in ways that do not harm, inflict evil and cause pain to others. That is correct. On the other hand, the same person might argue that it cannot be considered a violation of the principle of nonmaleficence if the person causing pain to another person is attempting to help save their lives. In this case, the doctor caused pain to Ms. Z in order to lessen the general pain of her illne...