Kantian Ethical Dilemma Summary

Futility is an ancient term that was used by Hippocrates stating that physicians should “refused treatment for those who are overcome by the disease.” (Kasman, 2004). Physicians are not obligated to continue medical treatment that they deem ineffective or harmful to their patients (Kasman, 2004). Physicians must use their clinical judgment when deciding if treatments are futile. They need to clarify to family and patients between treatments that are ineffective and still provide care that benefits the patients (Kasman, 2004). The physician just doesn’t say no to treatment that they perceive futile but discuss alternatives.

Why did I act as I did? This is because I cannot accept failure. Making mistake was not allowed in medical students because in some cases, we may do harm to patients or even worse lead to patients’ death. Although this incident would not cause any threats to the patient, it would be very embarrassing if I told any things which are inaccurate. I believe that I am not confident to face it.

In case of elective surgery, the patients are being informed about risk and benefit of the blood transfusion as well as the consequences of the refusal of the transfusion. Usually, Jehovah’s Witness patients have to sign a consent form which excludes the blood transfusion. In case of emergency, the doctors try to save the life. When they learn about the patient is a member of the Jehovah’s Witness, then it becomes a very challenging situation for them. They have to balance between the respect for the patient’s belief and their own commitment to promote and protect a patient’s life.

To start off with, Macbeth looks at different options given to him, analyzes them and finally decides what to do. Thought Lady Macbeth had a big role in his final decision, he still agreed to it and went against his morals. In the other hand, the barber shows wisdom by following his conscience and looking at all the possible consequences he might face after making his final verdict. It is better to make a decision while looking at all the risks that may occur because an individual does not get the opportunity again to fix their previous

The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.

Patient centered deontology is specific to euthanasia as it is dependent upon patient's consent. Jim desires the removal of the ventilator to avoid pain and discomfort. Although Kant would believe that euthanasia is morally impermissible, autonomy is used for arguing that euthanasia is morally permissible when the patient has consented. No one forced Jim into this decision, he exercised his rights to acting as a free rational being. Jim is acting on voluntary active euthanasia, he is giving consent and has acknowledged all the legal implications.

Kant’s second formulation of Categorical Imperative by using the language of means and ends summed is basically do not use people. Kant states “Always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.” which basically means let people make their own informed decisions. Do not use others to get what you want. Each persons has the right to make rational informed decisions about our own life (Class notes, Module 05, Pg 2). This second formulation means do not take advantage of people or just become friends with them because you need something.

A life perspective which rejects or does not incorporate the basic universal values is not an acceptable or practical philosophy for presence in a society. “A wise man’s sharing of a philosophy of life. But sharing is one thing, and instructing or guiding is another (Murphy, 1955).” As a counselor we should not enforce our values on clients. We can consider the ethics, viewpoint, and values of each and every client and we are also able to express our own values but only at the client’s

First, the Oath is not a legal document, and therefore there is no legal binding to it. Second, as Dieterle points out, it is just a “bunch of words” “without moral reasons to back them up, those words cannot dictate medical ethics or physicians duties” (2007, p. 138). Thirdly, the individual or patient, in the case of PAS, is administering the lethal medication, the physician is not. The physician also did not suggest this as an option; the patient sought out the option for him/her self. My personal view on the deontology debate is one of, yes killing is wrong, but first and foremost, the physician is not the one taking the life.

Her doctor had deceived her (Bok 224-225). Another way that physician can restrict their patient’s autonomy is by not giving them choices for different treatments. Additionally, dismissing a patient when they do propose ideas. The patient has no chance of making any decision, it lies entirely with the doctor. Also, ordering treatments in which the patient is purely passive.