Assignment 2 Non consequentialethicalanalysis

CONSEQUENTIAL ETHICAL ANALYSIS

NAME: Demin Arachchi Athukoralalage Gayathri Kanchana Athukorala

STUDENT NO: 22835352

UNIT: SOC 10236

ASSIGNMENT NO: 1

DATE: 2018/4/6

a) Clearly define your specific ethical question.

Should the physician, the clergymen or the family decide to discontinue the life support system in the case of a terminally ill person?

b) Describe why your particular ethical dilemma is significant and in need of evaluation?

Ending life pries various faucets that structure our society. For one, the patient is a social being, probably with family connections, thus before taking away the life, the position of the family on the decision has to be evaluated. Secondly there is the medical aspect of the situation which is where the physician’s decision comes in. Thirdly, religious opinion towards the perceived sacred nature of life has to be considered. As held by most religious beliefs, God reserves the power to terminate a life solely on himself and no human, regardless of circumstance has the power to terminate a life (Balboni, Et al, 2018, p 67). Thus we arrive at a dilemma. Who is justified to terminate the life? To get a justified answer to these questions, one has to conduct an analysis on the ethical issues addressing such issues

c) Identify and fully reference 6 key facts relevant to the analysis of your ethical question

For family members to arrive to the conclusion, they have to consider several issues. For one, some families may feel that continued life of the ill patients is acting for the worst by depleting their resources (Van Et al, 2014, p 877). Thus in this scenario, the decision to take away the life could be inspired by the situation of lack.

On the other hand, some families regard the life of patient to be of higher importance. This way the attachment of the family is willing to spend however much it will take just to have the patient hang around.

Focusing on physicians, the criteria used to arrive at the decision is a matter of issue.in some cases, the decision may be inspired by the financial costs placed on the family. Where they feel that the family members are not ready to fully pay the cost, they may opt letting the patient die in pursuit of the lesser evil (Crane, 2018).

Another clinical approach would be whereby the physicians are of the opinion that there is no medical remedy to redeem the patient (Izumi, Et al, 2012, p 611). The rationale in this case is that, instead of causing the patient more pain, it is better to bless the patient with death.

Religiously, the notion of taking away is greatly influenced by the dictates of divine doctrines. In most religions in the world, life is considered as a sacred entity and thus the action of taking away a life is left at the discretion of God (Balboni, Et al, 2018, p 67). This way, religious ethics adamantly condemn taking of anyone’s life regardless of how sick they are.

However, it should be appreciated that religious texts are subject to multiple interpretations. What one religious sect reads from a scripture may defer from what another sect infers of the same scripture. Thus there are religions that support taking one’s life as a way of releasing the person to his next life.

d) What assumptions are required to make to fill gaps in available facts?

It is a common assumption that ending the life of terminally sick patient acts to the good of those bearing the costs (Izumi, Et al, 2012, p 611). This is mainly the case where the deliberation has been arrived due to absence of any other option to save the life and close relations to the patient are encumbered by financial burdens beyond their capability.

Another common assumption is that ending a life is an easy way out in handling terminally ill patients. Whereas some diseases are curable, some people disregard the utility of saving a life and opt to save the associated costs. The cost could be, saving space in the care facilities, cutting financial burdens etc.

e) Analyse the ethical question using act utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism theories appraise ethically right from ethically wrong by analysing an action in light of the anticipated level of utility it accrues to others (Chadwick, 2012). Where an action is prone to reduce welfare of the others, it is judged as immoral and the opposite being as true.

Forecast of positive consequences

· Firstly taking away the life of the terminally ill, a space will be freed for another patient who may need it but suffering a curable condition. It is notable that in many facilities, intensive care units are not easily available and are a reserve only for serious conditions but which should not last forever. Ridding an incurable condition will give another thence to service.

· Secondly some cases are so taking a long time to cure and the consequence is placing heavy financial burdens on those paying the bills. There are cases where families have been dragged down to abject poverty while trying pay hospital bills (Van Et al, 2014, p 876). Letting go of the terminally sick will act to reduce such burdens.

· Thirdly it is a relief to relatives as they will come to the face of the reality sooner than later. Finances aside, the amount of time and sacrifice it takes to attend to such patients is tremendous and where there is apparently no other fate, terminating the life will leave them time to get over it and resume to the normal rhythm of life.

Forecast of negative consequences

· In cases where the family is forced to the decision by reason of lack of resources, guilty may haunts them afterwards affecting them psychologically. This is the case whereby they feel that they did not give enough and thus the lost life is on their hands. This psychological setback may further compromise their day to day living.

· Secondly, albeit subject to religious stance, tasking someone with the responsibility of taking away the life of another only creates guilt in them. According to many religions, the task of taking away a life is left to God and taking the action in your hands basically stains your hands with blood.

· Thirdly letting the terminally sick die leaves behind orphans and widows/widowers. These are left to strain to fill a gap left by terminally sick, but whom by reason of lack or necessity has had to be left to die.

f) Provide an ethical conclusion.

From the positions stated above, by application of utilitarian theories, taking away the life of a terminally sick person raises the utility of others more than lowering it, thus morally justifying the act. Utilitarian principals tend to ignore the interests of the doer and alternatively regard the welfare of the masses. From the analysis, relatives benefit from freedom from unnecessary financial encumbrances, time saving and the facility benefits on free space to treat other emergencies all at the expense of the terminally sick.

References

Balboni, M.J., Sullivan, A., Smith, P.T., Zaidi, D., Mitchell, C., Tulsky, J.A., Sulmasy, D.P., VanderWeele, T.J. and Balboni, T.A., 2018. The Views of Clergy Regarding Ethical Controversies in Care at the End of Life. Journal of pain and symptom management, 55(1), pp.65-74.

Chadwick, R., 2012. The Encyclodpedia of Applied Ethics.

Crane, D., 2018. The sanctity of social life: physicians treatment of critically ill patients. Routledge.

Izumi, S., Nagae, H., Sakurai, C. and Imamura, E., 2012. Defining end-of-life care from perspectives of nursing ethics. Nursing ethics, 19(5), pp.608-618.

Katz, R.S. and Johnson, T.G. eds., 2013. When professionals weep: Emotional and countertransference responses in end-of-life care. Routledge.

Van, I.J., Piers, R.D., Van Camp, S., Grypdonck, M., Van Den Noortgate, N.J., Deveugele, M., Verbeke, N.C. and Verhaeghe, S., 2014. Perspectives of family members on planning end-of-life care for terminally ill and frail older people. Journal of pain and symptom management, 47(5), pp.876-886.