Assignment task: You are a local, certified physician and citizen of the United States of America. As an American citizen, you have an oath towards the law, and as a physician, you have taken the oath inspired by Hippocrates that includes the words, "Do no harm." While attending your evening shift, an eight-year-old boy is rushed into the emergency room. He was just air-lifted in after a rural ATV accident, and he has lost a critical amount of blood. With a quick blood transfusion, this young boy should live.
As you order a blood transfusion, the boy's mother hands you small card. On the card, it states "No Blood". She is part of a Christian sect that abides by the scripture found in Acts 15:20 which states, "...we should write to them, telling them to abstain...from blood." Within this sect, baptism is considered an explicit contract with God, and breaking an oath to God comes with dire consequences which they refer to as "the second death"
She begs you not to order a blood transfusion, and they will refuse care if it is ordered. You explain that if the boy does receive a blood transfusion, he will die. She still refuses the treatment for her son.
What should you do?
In this dilemma, you need to (1) isolate the important facts of the dilemma, and describe why those facts are pertinent to the framework of Contractualism. Then, (2) describe what types of duties or loyalties each agent has. (3) Describe the most important principles that you will be using from the framework. (4) Identify the various forms of consent offered in this dilemma. (5) Consider the viewpoints from each agent. (6) Which action will you take? Make sure to use arguments from Contractualism to justify your choice.