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).

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.

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. Refusal of a patient's wishes would deprecate a patient’s autonomy by impeding them from acting as an end in themselves as well as belittling them as a

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).

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.

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. For example, performing surgery leaves a patient completely passive. These last two restrictors can be very damaging for patients being treated with mental illness.

In the January 29, The Stanford Daily editorial Stanford, California, it debates the different essential of the principle of morality and identified Brock Turner had applied a use of force in raping an unconscious woman behind the dumpster. Furthermore, the young man attended Stanford University and participated in his college swim team dreamt of partaking in the Olympus. The victim heartfelt statement during the trial is disregarded because he comes from a class of privilege and is a man. Not to mention, Brock Turner’s father wrote a letter to expressing the universalizability to court saying, “my son’s life shouldn’t be ruined over 20 minutes of action (Dreher,Rod).” Therefore, Aaron Persky who is a California judge implemented an ethical decision that contemplated the clarity around both the specific choice and decision then declared a six months sentenced ruling.

• In the state of Massachusetts a prescription is required from a doctor in order to distribute hypodermic needles. In the year 1990, two citizens of the city of Lynn started a needle exchange program in an goal to fight against the spread of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome also known as (AIDS). The two men legally purchased new sterile needles over-the-counter in Vermont. The defendants were at a specific location on Union Street in Lynn from 5 P.M. to 7 P.M. every Wednesday evening in 1991 until their arrest made in June 19. They accepted dirty needles from society in exchange for clean needles; they exchanged between 150 and 200 needles each night ranging from 50-60 people.

Sometimes situations occur in our lives that happen because of chance awhile other times they occur because of a choice made. This is especially true with Eliezer in Elie Wiesel’s Night. Eliezer has a series of events happen to him that have happened be chance or by choice. Eliezer never asked to be a Jew in a time when it was so fatal to be one but it happened by chance.

Physician assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong due to the Hippocratic oath doctors take at the beginning of their term, and unlike euthanasia, it is therefore the patient that triggers the death and not a third party. Our culture subscribes to the notion of the “absolute sanctity of life”, Western religions do not plainly forbid suicide, and assisted suicide would result in overall no harm on the society. The physician-assisted suicide controversy surrounds the idea that assisted suicide rests on the difference between dying with dignity and dying suffering. The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial. It is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape the unbearable

The Donald “Dax” Cowart presents a clear case in which the costs of requiring policy to defer to physicians' credo outweigh the potential benefits. The costs include patients' suffering and loss of liberty and physicians' involvement in hastening certain death, while the potential benefits are possible recovery and restoration to health for the patient and protecting the integrity of the medical code. He was repeatedly declared to be competent by a psychiatrist during this period. In Cowart's case, the value of patient autonomy may have ultimately outweighed a physician's responsibility to avoid participation in patients' death. This view is a concession to the theoretical goal that physicians never forego their pursuit of health and wellness,