biomedical ethics quiz 8

.docx

School

Rutgers University, Camden *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AmbassadorHeatOwl41

Biomedical Ethics Quiz 8 1.Explain Callahan’s metaphysical reason for treating killing and letting die differently. (use the slides) Callahan explains that there are moral factors and philosophical that come about when dealing with killing and letting die. There is a difference between the metaphysical reason which is transient causality and immanent causality. In transient causality, there is no moral responsibility because no human did an action to affect an outside factor. Transient causality applies to things of the “external world”. Immanent causality is different because it applies to humans doing things intentionally to the outside world while knowing the outcome. There also is a moral responsibility because there was intentional fault for the situation. A physician can be at fault for killing a patient because of immanent causality since they are morally responsible. Letting a patient die would fall under transient causality because the patient has a disease which is an external factor. In terminal illness, a physician would not have moral responsibility. 2.Explain Callahan’s moral reason for treating killing and letting die differently. There are two moral reasons for killing or letting die which are physical causality and moral culpability. Physical causality would mean that a person would physically do something to kill another person. That person does the action directly and kills the other. Moral culpability applies to both killing and letting die. If someone kills they are at fault and are morally responsible for doing so. If someone lets someone die, moral culpability also applies but the difference is that there was no physical causality. 3.What is the point of the example of the baby with Down syndrome who dies from a bowel obstruction? Do you agree with Rachels' assessment of what the physicians should have done? Rachels gave the example of Baby Doe because he wanted to go against the doctrine that says active euthanasia is never allowed. In the case of Baby Doe, the parents and the physician let the baby die and not operate. The baby died a painful death because of starvation and dehydration. Active euthanasia in this case was a better choice because the baby would not have suffered as much as letting the baby starve to death. Rachels also argued that the baby having Down syndrome was another factor in why they did not decide to operate and used it as an excuse for letting the baby die. This goes against the doctrine because the baby could have lived if it were to have received surgery for the bowel obstruction.

4.What is the point of the Smith and Jones example in Rachels’ essay? How would Callahan object to Rachels’ conclusion about Smith and Jones? Smith and Jones were used to explain that there is not a difference in morality regarding killing and letting someone die. Smith and Jones wanted to both inherit what their cousin had and had the same motive. It is both morally wrong because it ended in the same outcome. Rachels also gives the example that if a doctor acted in passive euthanasia by letting the patient die, it would be the same if he killed the patient with an injection for the same reason and same outcome. Callahan would object because he would argue on the moral reason. There was no physical culpability in Jones example because he did not do anything to kill his cousin. Transient causality would also apply since the cousin died by drowning himself. As for Smith’s example, Callahan would say that it is immanent causality and both physical and moral culpability. Smith intentionally and physically drowned his cousin. He is also morally responsible for it as well. 5.What does Brock argue with respect to the autonomy of doctors in determining their own involvement in assisted suicide? He says that doctors have their own ideologies for assisted suicide and if they do not agree with it, then they are allowed to transfer them to another physician. A physician is also allowed to have autonomy over their decisions on whether to follow through with active euthanasia. Brock also mentions that people might be scared that physicians might kill them instead of heal them and therefore lose trust in them. He goes against this argument by saying that active euthanasia would be in the hands of the patient because it is voluntary. The patient has their own autonomy and only if they ask, the physician will do assisted suicide. It would enhance trust because patients would ask for it and know that the doctor will help them with it. The patients would never be forced to undergo active euthanasia.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help