Utilitarianism Principle: A Legal Case

In her book, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, Anne Fadiman describes the story of the Lee family and the frightening task they had to to undergo to provide their daughter with medical aid. The Lees along with the other thousands of Hmong immigrants, tried to understand the and navigate the complex and sometimes confusing healthcare system in the United States. As the book points out, the values and ideals of the Hmong culture and the United States health care system are not always the same and sometimes come into great conflict with each other. Lia Lee was unfortunately the person stuck in the middle of this great conflict.

Ethical differences can occur because of individual perseption of a subject or event (Legal dictionary, 2017). The ethical difference even may be political or religious in nature (Legal dictionary, 2017). Legal reasoning helps people to distinguish between what is right within society compared to what they think they should do. In this case, the moral reasoning is to end the patients suffering and to allow the resident to die is the kinder option (Moore, 2017). The legal reasoning in this case would be to honor the families wishes with the exception that the decision for life saving treatments was made in a malicious manner (Moore,

Ask yourself where you draw the line on whether something is right or wrong, ask someone else where they draw a line on whether something is right or wrong. This idea of where we stand on our moral values and how we announce them almost always relates similarly to others around us. Could this be because we are within a similar culture, or could it be because we share similar ideas? No matter what, it will always come down to the statement of each and every one of us having our own moral values, no matter how similar they may be.

Exactly, you would want your child to be saved as well. That 's one of the major flaws I see in utilitarianism. The rule of utilitarianism is that the decision that brings the most happiness should be made. I 'm not saying the disabled child wouldn 't bring any happiness, I 'm saying in this case the neighbor 's four kids would bring more happiness to society rather than the disabled one. The act of utilitarianism is a cruel system, but if one wants to incorporate into society then they should incorporate it completely rather than

The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.

It is very clear to most that Grey’s Anatomy is an inaccurate depiction of medicine and the healthcare industry. Though heavily dramatized and ‘doctored’, there have been moments of learning, especially with this ethical issue. In episode 18 of season 6 (Suicide is Painless), Dr. Altman, a cardiothoracic surgeon, is faced with a situation where her patient, Kim Allen, wishes to end her life through physician-assisted suicide. Kim is a newly married patient with stage IV large cell lung cancer that has spread to her lymph nodes and liver. Her only option remaining is palliative care and she has been given 6 months to live and will soon have to be intubated due to breathing difficulties. Kim says it is time, has requested dying with dignity twice and has been viewed as mentally fit. The viewer walks through the plethora of struggles and emotions that Dr. Altman is faced with as she succumbs to a decision, her husband as he accepts his wife’s decision, and Kim as she elects physician-assisted suicide. In this case, and many others worldwide, physician assisted suicide is morally permissible at all ages for anyone with a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months. This is supported by act based utilitarianism and the idea of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain and suffering on an individual circumstance. By allowing a terminal patient to die a less painful death, in control of the situation, and with dignity, the patient will have amplified

From time to time, social work practitioners face different challenges and one of such example is being confronted with ethical dilemmas. An ethical dilemma is defined as “when the social worker sees himself or herself as facing a choice between two equally unwelcoming alternatives, which may involve a conflict of moral values, and it is not clear which choice will be the right one” (Banks, 2012). Ethical dilemmas can occur in the context of either client or organisational-related conflict situations at work.

I strongly agree with Aras look on the autonomy argument and that individuals should be able to determine the level of suffering for which they can endure and when the point comes to end ones life. Suffering is a complex thing that cannot be measured or determined by anyone but the individual himself or herself. Therefor I do not think that anyone is in a place to say that an individual should prolong their suffering when in the case of terminally ill patients will ultimately end in death. In terms of the utilitarian argument I agree that one needs to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness, but find issues with it similar to Rachels that will be discussed later. Where I disagree with Aras is in his analysis of the slippery slope argument and potential for abuse. I feel with the necessary safe guards put into place the slippery slope argument and abuse will be negligible. I do not agree that the arguments made for physician-assisted suicide can be made in any other case but terminally ill patients. For terminally ill patients the end result is going to be death whether it is in a few days, weeks, or months. With other illnesses, while life may be depreciated, death is not looming in the near future. The unnecessary suffering caused to terminally ill patients, isn’t going to go

It is nearly impossible for the patient to rely on another person to make the best decision that they would have made for themselves, particularly when it involves personal interests such as profiting from a will. If there is something to gain, the family members’ motives seem questionable. If the patient falls ill, then there lies a possibility that their heirs will hope for the patient’s death so that they could receive their inheritance. The inability to confirm whether the family actually has the patient’s best interest in mind supports the argument that any form of euthanasia is unethical. Moreover, health care costs for terminally ill patients, including nursing homes, prescription drugs, and home health care deserves consideration. Some families can not afford to drop everything in order to take on the full time responsibility of their sick loved one. This adds financial stress to the family and can lead to the desire to resolve the issue by forcing the idea of euthanasia on to the loved one. According to Time.com, one in every four Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life. The result of this is often an overwhelming debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the care of a single patient costing approximately $39,000 exceeding the financial assets for many households. When the patient is uninsured or denied coverage from an insurance company, the family inherits the costs. In cases like these, legalizing euthanasia would present it as a viable solution, and in their distress, the family members may selfishly consider it to alleviate the financial burden the patient may

Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a

Death is a natural process that will be experienced by everyone at some point, desirably at the end of a long, well lived life. The reality is that no one knows when that time will come or how it will happen. Unfortunately, for the terminally ill, death is in the near future and it is a sobering reality. Therefore, when that time comes, people need to know that they will have options, and the assurance that death does not have to be an agonizing end. They can choose to endure the annihilating pain that comes with the disease and allow it to take its natural course or choose to put an end to it, surrounded by those who love them. For the terminally ill the decision of ending their lives with compassion should be a fundamental right, a personal

Countless people all around the world are living in constant pain and misery. They have been diagnosed with chronic conditions or have suffered severe injuries that they can never fully recover from. Many ethical issues can be raised about this topic, but this paper will focus on only one: assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is a morally right option for people that have completely exhausted their options and can 't bear to live their life anymore.

A virtuous approach to the right to die debate emphasizes less on actions and more on the character of the person who performs the action. According to virtue ethics the opportunity to choose how and when to die is not by itself sufficient to ensure a good death. Hence, euthanasia is permissible if both the individual and the caregiver possess virtues such as courage, honesty and integrity. So, if the doctors were motivated by compassion, benevolence and respect for Karen Ann, only then would the act of euthanasia be

Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions. Involving a medically trained ethicist to provide family members with some guidance on this very difficult decision can be helpful. In the article, “When living is a Fate Worse than Death”, Christine Mitchell describes a sympathetic, emotional look into the life and death of a family’s little girl.

The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is,