Documentl-Word LAYOUT REFERENCES MAILINGS REVIEW VIEW ETHICAL DILEMMA: Imagine t
ID: 246348 • Letter: D
Question
Documentl-Word LAYOUT REFERENCES MAILINGS REVIEW VIEW ETHICAL DILEMMA: Imagine that a man comes into the emergency room after being in a car accident. He has lost a lot of blood from the various cuts on his body but has no other life threatening injuries. He is conscious and aware of his surroundings. The doctor determines that this patient needs a blood transfusion or he is in danger of dying. However, the patient refuses the blood transfusion and explains that it is against his religion. Waiting in the emergency room for the patient are his wife and their two young children. USE YOUR OWN WORDS NO OUTSIDE SOURCES 1) According to utilitarianism, is it ethical for a physician to give this patient a blood transfusion against his will? To answer this question, you must argue as if you are a utilitarian, written out in full sentences and paragraphs, to show which course of action is moral. If you need to assume any facts to complete your analysis, be sure to state that in your argument (be sure to identify which type you are using in your example, act or rule) (this should take roughly 3 full paragraphs: 1 to explain positive consequences, 1 to explain negative consequences, and 1 to show which one outweighs the other). According to libertarianism, what kind of law should govern the above ethical dilemma (a competent patient refusing life-sustaining treatment) and why. To answer this question, you need to explain what negative and positive rights are and which the government should protect and why according to libertarianism as well as how this would apply to the specific question (this should take roughly 2-3 full paragraphs)? 2) a) What is the veil of ignorance according to Rawls, what is its purpose, and how does the veil relate to Rawls' 2 principles (this should take roughly 1 paragraph to explain)? 3) b) Explain Rawls two principles in your own words and explain whether they protect negative and/or positive rights and why (this should take roughly 2 full paragraphs: 1 each to explain both principles and 1 to explain whether they protect negative/positive rights and why)?Explanation / Answer
1-Inability to act may prompt criminal allegations of carelessness or even, should the patient kick the bucket, of guilty manslaughter; mediation, then again, could prompt criminal accusations of trespass against physical honesty or to claims for harms by the patient for infringement of the privilege to self-assurance.
The primary school of thought thinks about educated assent as securing an outright ideal to self-assurance. In like manner, the privilege to deny treatment is above inquiry, notwithstanding when it puts the patient's life in danger.
The second holds that when the patient is oblivious and his or her physical uprightness is in genuine and impending risk the doctor to mediate and to give a transfusion, and this can't constitute grounds either for cases of risk or for charges of trespass against physical respectability.
A third approach holds that the "condition of need" is material notwithstanding when the patient is completely ready to appreciate and express him or herself, if the refusal of treatment would infer a hazard of demise or genuine mischief. This is contended by summoning differently: the lawful commitments of wellbeing laborers; the origination of life as a natural decent; proficient morals.
2-Both the second and third positions specified above allude to the alleged "condition of need" set up in Article 54 of the Italian Penal Code. This "condition of need" suggests that any individual who has "conferred a demonstration since he/she was obliged to do as such by the need to spare him/herself or others from impending risk of genuine substantial damage not caused wilfully by him/herself and not generally avoidable" isn't culpable, "given that the demonstration is proportionate to the threat". A similar article indicates that the circumstance of threat that requires the demonstration must be prompt and the peril must include the danger of genuine damage to the individual conferring the demonstration or to others.
3-The Italian position yet with a few varieties, holds that when obviousness supervenes and the patient's physical respectability is in genuine and impending peril, the doctor is obliged to mediate. Keeping in mind the end goal to analyze this situation in moral terms it is intriguing to contrast it and the conclusions communicated by the Italian National Bioethics Committee and other comparable bodies in different nations. The same number of the controls in constrain in EU part nations are gotten from EU Directives, the bioethics advisory groups of EU part nations are a decent beginning stage. To date the main nations other than Italy whose bioethics boards of trustees have tended to this theme are Belgium and Portugal. As is clear from the accompanying selections, the national advisory groups' position is in accordance with both the places of other comparable boards.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.