Presumed Consent Policy

This article discusses the concept of presumed consent policy in healthcare ethics and its effectiveness in increasing organ donations. It explores how the policy aligns with the autonomy and utilitarianism ethical principles. The article also highlights the policy's impact on fairness in medical decisions and the distribution of scarce resources.

Running head: HEALTHCARE ETHICS 1
HEALTHCARE ETHICS
Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 2
PRESUMED CONSENT POLICY
Presumed consent has been widely used in many countries to increase the number of
organ donations. Through the presumed consent, the consent for being a donor is assumed if a
deceased person had not expressed any wish not to be a donor. The policy of presumed consent
will be an effective way of increasing organ donations.
As per the autonomy principle, individuals have the sole right over their bodies.
According to the autonomy principle, an individual should not be coerced into making any
decisions. It requires them to do so willingly. This, therefore, removes the decision making
power on both the person family members as well as the healthcare provider (Frey, 2013). The
policy of presumed consent requires individuals to have the final say on the decisions made
regardless of the impact of these decisions. It, therefore, falls in line with the requirements of the
autonomy ethical principle.
Act utilitarianism ethical theory, on the other hand, uses outcomes to determine
right from wrong. It holds that the choice that produces the best results for the greatest number.
The presumed consent policy is likely to produce the best results by benefiting a huge number of
people dependent on organ donations for survival (Pfäfflin, Kobert & Reiter-Theil, 2009). It,
therefore, conforms to the tenets of the utilitarianism ethical theory.
The presumed consent policy roots for the fairness in medical decisions and the
distribution of scarce resources. According to the policy, all individuals provided with an
opportunity to consent or not to consent to donate before their death. It also makes it mandatory
for healthcare providers to adhere to legal provisions touching on individual wishes (Gallin &
Ognibene, 2012). By assuming the consent of donations for all persons, fair distribution of scarce
vital organs is guaranteed. Also, it removes the ability of the family members to decide on behalf

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 3
of the deceased. It is therefore in line with the requirements of the fairness principle of health
care ethics
The policy makes it mandatory for healthcare providers to consider individual choices
and avoid any harm to patients. It, therefore, falls within the provisions of rule utilitarianism an
ethical principle which requires health care providers to adhere to the rule that promotes the
common good all situations at whatever cost (Pfäfflin, Kobert & Reiter-Theil,2009). By
removing the decision making power on family members and healthcare providers, the policy
prioritizes actions as per the wishes of the deceased.
In conclusion, the presumed consent policy is an effectual provision for the enhancement
of fairness in the distribution of scarce resources, avoidance of harm on patients, prioritization of
personal decision making at all times. I therefore strongly agree with it.

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 4
References
Frey, R. G. (2013). Act‐utilitarianism. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, 219-237.
Gallin, J. I., & Ognibene, F. P. (Eds.). (2012). Principles and practice of clinical research. Academic
Press.
Pfäfflin, M., Kobert, K., & Reiter-Theil, S. (2009). Evaluating clinical ethics consultation: a European
perspective. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(4), 406-419.

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 5
HARM REDUCTION
Harm reduction is a key ethical requirement in the healthcare sector. Harm reduction
makes it a requirement for healthcare providers to avoid making decisions likely to harm a
patient or society. The new Harm reduction clinic will be quite useful in the promotion of the
patient's welfare.
The No harm clinic aims at achieving various patient-centered objectives. First, it aims at
providing drugs to patients at the site, provides financial and housing assistance to patients and
offer counseling services to patients.
Act utilitarianism ethical principle judge’s action based on their results. It assumes an act
that produces the best results for a particular situation to be morally right. Based on the fact that
harm reduction is a key objective for healthcare providers, the new decision of building a harm
reduction clinic can be classified as right if only it produces best results (Force, 2011).
On the contrary, deontological ethical principles base the morality of an action on
whether the action itself is wrong or right. It, therefore, supports the morality of an action based
on rightness or wrongness of the action itself and not the consequences of the action (Horty,
2011). It does not use the consequences of an action to judge whether the action is right or
wrong.
Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, considers an action to be good if it adheres to the
rule that leads to the greater good. A rule based on harm reduction for patients can be assumed to
lead to the greater good. Therefore a hospital-centered on improving patient outcomes and

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 6
experiences adheres to the rule of the common good (Solbakk, 2011). The rule utilitarianism
ethical principle, therefore, supports the action.
In conclusion, the action to build a harm reduction center is supported by several ethical
principles. As is focused on the promotion of the common good for patients, the act conforms to
the requirements of the Act utilitarianism. The action of reducing harm is also advocated for in
healthcare. The action is therefore also in agreement with the requirements of ontological ethical
rules. Finally, the act is also supported by the rule utilitarianism ethical principle.

HEALTHCARE ETHICS 7
References
Force, C. C. T. (2011). Core competencies for healthcare ethics consultation. Glenview: American
Society for Bioethics and Humanities.
Horty, J. F. (2011). Perspectival act utilitarianism. In Dynamic Formal Epistemology (pp. 197-221).
Springer, Dordrecht.
Solbakk, J. H. (2011). Vulnerability: A futile or useful principle in healthcare ethics. The SAGE
handbook of health care ethics. London: SAGE, 228-238.
-
-.