The discussion focuses on the case of Jewel Shuping, and you may read more about Jewel Shuping below. The author of the

[answerhappygod]

The discussion focuses on the case of Jewel Shuping, and you may
read more about Jewel Shuping below. The author of the linked
article, Dias, states the following about the Shuping case:
http://www.bioethics.net/2015/11/can-cl ... l-shuping/
"Though there is no cure for BIID, the psychologist’s actions
are not ethical. Unequivocally, pouring drain cleaner into
Shuping’s eyes was an unsafe, harmful, and unnecessary course of
action. While it is true that Shuping is an autonomous agent with a
right to make choices and request a specific treatment, this right
is not absolute, and a clinician is not obligated to honor this
right if it conflicts with fiduciary responsibilities. In this
case, doing so guaranteed irreversible, unnecessary harm to the
patient—Shuping herself reflected that she experienced
excruciating, burning pain, which the psychologist who administered
the treatment would have anticipated. By all measures, there was
absolutely no assurance that doing so would guarantee Shuping’s
long-term happiness, much less lead to an improvement in her mental
or physical stability. As such, the clinician who treated Shuping
violated a fundamental tenet of medical ethics—primum non nocere
('do no harm' also called nonmaleficence).”
This discussion post assignment asks you to consider Dias'
position and explore nonmaleficence, patient autonomy, and
beneficence in relationship to the Shuping case.
Please choose 2 of the following questions to address in your
post. You do not need to answer them all. These questions are
intended to guide your response and help your frame thoughts. ONLY
PICK 2 QUESTIONS.
300- 500 words