Please help me get started on the following questions:
This is a case study (see attachment). After reading the case, use two medical ethic theories being utilitarianism, Kant, Ross, feminist or Aristotle, and show what the physician should do in this case justifying your answer with two theories. Give a small introduction to the case. Either use two theories collectively to justify the answer or use two different opposing theories and show how the theory supporting your answer is superior to the other opposing theory. Choose the two theories that seem most relevant to the case.
See the attached file.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 4:28 pm ad1c9bdddf
I will follow your outline as indicated below:
"format should be something like this:
an intro to the case, I will be comparing these two theories, explain what position u are coming from. So also include your thesis, so like this doctor should do this and follow these steps.
next-> 1 paragraph regarding the 1st theory. so according to theory X the doc should take these steps. Justify them according to the theory. This theory x based on these reasons arrives at the conclusion that these steps should be taken.
next->2nd paragraph regarding the 2nd theory. could be a opposing theory to the 1st theory or a supporting theory. same format as the above paragraph.
conclusion at the end: you should do this according to these two theories. the doc should take these steps, according to this theory it is justified."
I decided on two theories as suggested in the file attached:
"Also: you may use a theory like utilitarianism and say that it is okay to lie, but also say that according to an opposing theory like Kant (this states no lying) u should do this. However, regardless it is better to follow theory X and do this because it is for the patients betterment. Conclude it. Just make a decision and justify it with a theory. U can use two same theories or use two opposing theories and conclude by telling us which is better to follow."
Through an example of a medical ethical dilemma, this paper compares two opposing
ethical theories, Kantian and Utilitarian theories. Kant is the primary proponent of what is called deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of duty. On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. The categorical imperative is Kant's famous statement of this duty: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Central idea being "What if fair for one, is fair for all." In contrast, Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. The thesis of this paper is that it is a doctor's moral obligation to inform his patient of all potential risks prior to surgery.
According to Kantian theory, the doctor should tell the patient all the risks prior to having surgery. It is morally wrong to hide these risks from her, as "you are never justified in telling a lie." Therefore, the doctor cannot opt to tell the husband that everything would be okay, who in turn would convince his wife to have the ...
Referring to the case, this solution applies two ethical theories to the case to show what the physician should do in this case. Supplemented with articles on Kantian and Utilitarian ethics.