does not address matters of relevance involved with determining autonomy, including consciousness or freedom from coercion. “Bioethical and legal issues arise when a person is called upon to make this decision, based upon his or her own religious beliefs, for another person such as a child or an elderly or incompetent adult” (Fremgen, 2009, pg. 176). The assumption that religious considerations are the main contributing factor for dilemmas of autonomy is myopic and impractical as many social, cultural, familial, personal and financial components may contribute to a person’s decision making with regards to healthcare treatments and options. The aforementioned definition given by Fremgen also implies that people without religious considerations would not have ethical dilemmas when making healthcare decisions for themselves or others. However, one would conclude that the complexity of the human condition is still relevant even in the absence of religious belief. Therefore, in consideration of the inefficiency and of the definition provided by Fremgen, the definitions given by Rodriguez and Spicer will be used to analyze the following dilemmas.

Within the ethical guidelines of the healthcare profession, therapeutic privilege offers an option for nondisclosure under certain guidelines. “Physicians may withhold information about a patient’s diagnosis or treatment when disclosing it would pose a serious psychological threat, so serious a threat as to be medically contraindicated” (Wynia, 2004, p. 14). Following the guideline of therapeutic privilege, the provider may not disclose information simply because the information would cause the patient to choose a different course of action, but only in the event that the information would cause significant unnecessary harm if disclosed and is therefore determined to be medically contraindicated (Wynia, 2004). In this way, providers partially disregard the first ethical principle, selectively disclosing information and therefore not being fully truthful and allowing for the necessary information for complete autonomy, in lieu of the second and third principles, beneficence and non-malfeasance. However, beneficence is not sufficient; the judgment must be subjective to preventing actual harm.

The second principle within healthcare ethics is beneficence (Fremgen, 2009; Rodriguez, 2009; Gauthier, 2005). Beneficence means to “act with charity and kindness” (Rodriguez, 2009); it means to use one’s skills and professional authority to care for, comfort, and if possible, cure a patient. Beneficence implies that one will fairly and justly provide services with the intention of another’s improving the patient’s wellbeing. Rodriguez’s definition is valid because it indicates the primary values of beneficence.

When deciding ethical dilemmas, it is important to not only consider the ethical o