Ava Jones is a four-year-old girl who suffers from severe kidney failure. Severe kidney failure causes a progressive decline in kidney function and leads to the inability to filter waste products from the blood (Johns, 2018). Ava's doctor has noticed that her ability to thrive is diminishing. Her doctor says that without a kidney transplant in the near future, she will not be able to survive without a properly functioning kidney. The chance of a successful transplant alone is about ninety percent, but only if the kidney is transplanted from a close relative who has a similar tissue type to Ava's. If they don't find a similar type of tissue, the transplant likely won't result in successful surgery, even if the kidney comes from a close relative. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Implanting a close relative without a similar tissue type would result in just as poor an outcome as a cadaver with a non-similar matching tissue. Additionally, if a cadaver has a similar tissue type, it will have a lower probability rate of a good tissue match than a close family relative. The doctor informed Ava's family, which consists of her parents and two older siblings, of the tissue type match, that they needed testing from her close relatives. Her family agrees to undergo testing to find the best type of tissue for Ava's kidney transplant. The test came back and showed that the excellent candidate for donation is Ava's father, all other family member tests came back poor. The doctor is ready to call the family and tell them the good news of the test results, but is interrupted by the father who wants to speak privately to Ava's doctor. She tells him the results of the test, but to his surprise, he bursts into tears saying he is afraid to donate his kidney. He continues to urge the doctor to tell his family that none of them are a perfect match for a donor and asks to begin the search for a corpse with a good match. Ava's best chance of survival for this kidney transplant is to receive a kidney from her father. The doctor believes that if she tells the man's wife, he will be convinced and humiliated to donate his kidney. She didn't want Ava's father to feel obligated to donate a kidney for his daughter's implant surgery. In the case above, as a doctor, I would notice the issue of divided loyalties between the patient's father and Ava. I need the whole family to know about the test results, not just the father. Telling the man's wife that none of the close relatives are a perfect match for his daughter's tissue is considered dishonesty. You have to remain honest at all times, especially as a doctor. One could say that by telling the man's wife and Ava's family that the test results came back showing that no close relatives are a perfect match for Ava's kidney implant, the father would not be forced by his will or shamed into being the kidney donor for his daughter. Therefore, the solution is to find another matching tissue type and a willing donor for Ava. According to the prima facie moral principle of autonomy, lying to the man's wife is justifiable because this principle protects Ava's father's body from forcing him to be a donor. It would also benefit a close relative, who would not risk their own life to live without a kidney by donating it to Ava. On the other hand, it could be argued that it is morally wrong for the doctorfor being dishonest to the man's wife and Ava's family. by not communicating to them the results of the tests showing the perfect match of the father's tissues, according to the test results. By telling the family about Ava's father's fear of having kidney surgery, they could understand his feelings and perhaps talk to him about it. Another thing to consider in this situation is that by donating his kidney, his daughter's life would be saved by receiving the implant of a new kidney; thereby preserving life for the next generation. Being professional is very important in healthcare, and for me as a doctor in this situation. A false result told to a patient could jeopardize their career. A second principle of autonomy is the principle of keeping promises. The principle of keeping promises is: “In general, moral agents have an obligation to keep their promises.” As a physician, you have a moral obligation to keep my patient's medical records confidential. No matter who I show their chart to, I must have the patient's permission to inform them. Otherwise, they must remain confidential. As a doctor, I have this obligation to Ava and her father. Normative models also aim to resolve questions of personal involvement and relationships between the patient and the doctor. The normative ethical theory of duty is an example; deontology is “rights and duties are justified whatever the values ​​that result from them”. There are two deontological theories; Kantianism and contractarianism. Kantianism is that “an action is morally good only if it is motivated by the recognition that the action is a moral duty, and not by inclination or desire.” Contractarianism is "one of various theories that justify moral principles and political choices because they depend on a social contract involving certain ideal conditions, such as lack of ignorance or uncertainty." In this situation, Kantianism is more relevant, because the doctor's action is morally good if he does not force Ava's father, out of obligation, to donate his kidney for his daughter's transplant. But it is also dangerous for Ava's health and well-being. Kantianism considers being right or wrong without thinking about the consequences, while utilitarianism considers the consequences. In this situation, it is morally right to communicate the true test results to the family, rather than respecting the father's wishes to hide the results due to his fears. Otherwise, it could put Ava's life at risk by waiting for another perfect tissue match, without respecting the father's wishes regarding his concerns regarding the surgery. Nevertheless, we must still morally consider our two options; tell Ava's family the real test results or not. The first step in discovering which situation is the right approach is through beneficence, a term that allows the doctor to decide who benefits most. As a doctor, you have an obligation to do for your patients what is best for them. This approach includes the opposite obligation, that of non-maleficence or not causing harm to others. The doctor is supposed to do everything that contributes to improving and preserving Ava's life but also that of her father. By not communicating the test results to Ava's family, the father's life would be preserved and the search for someone compatible with Ava's transplant would continue. In this scenario, the doctor felt it was wrong to tell Ava's family the true test results, so her father was not ashamed to become the kidney donor. However, my main priority in this matter is.