Analyzing Kant's Case Summary

De Bord, J. (2014). ETHICS IN MEDICINE University of Washington School of Medicine. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/consent.html

The first article is entitled “of mice but not men: problems of randomized clinical trials,” is written by Samuel Hellman and Deborah S. Hellman discusses the issues of randomized medical testing and experiments on patients. The article describes the role of the personal physician and how the physician can take an ethical or unethical path of treating his/her patients. The relationship between the patient and physician is greatly emphasized because according to the article trust is very valuable in medicine especially when a patient’s life is at risk. A Kantian and a Utilitarian view of randomized clinical trials are debated but the authors clearly steers towards a Kantian point of view.

A rights ethicist would argue the moral questions that it is the duty of physician's to "do no harm…and those rules are justified by reference to a general conception of personal and social welfare." The rights that are weighed desire to balance the risks to be taken against the possible good that could be attained through

A 35-year-old man named Paul, who has a supportive wife and two adventurous kids, has been diagnosed with a very severe case of bone cancer for 1 year now. Since this type of cancer is so severe, chemotherapy is starting to not work as well. Paul’s oncologist unfortunately had to suggest a final option for Paul to try which was a clinical research trial. Clinical research trials are experimental studies that deem whether or not a medical drug, treatment, surgery, or device is safe and beneficial for humans to use ("National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute"). As explained in Marcia Angell’s Article, “The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World”, the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Health Organization (WHO) provides a guideline

This edition consists of nine chapters divided into three parts, as well as an appendix of ten biomedical ethics cases. In Part I, chapter 1, entitled "Moral Norms," introduces the decision-making framework with attention to specifying and balancing principles and rules for moral deliberation and decision-making. Chapter 2, entitled "Moral Character," elaborates on moral virtues and ideals as an often-neglected area in biomedical ethics. In Part II, chapters 3 through 6 present the four basic groups of principles, and chapter 7, "Professional-Patient Relationships," examines the moral rules of veracity,

Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would’ve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would’ve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using him as a means to an end. A rational being, in Kant’s view, is an end in himself, whether criminal or law-abiding

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

With the statement, “warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon 's knife or the chemist 's drug” physicians are given the responsibility to step down from their systematic ways of scientific thinking and make decisions on the level of human kind. The modern oath also provides for the necessary address of issues in liability in relation with a physicians judgment. This is predominately done by promoting the uniting of colleagues and defending a physicians right to be unsure in a world of so many unknowns. This acceptance and appreciation is essential for fostering a comradely among physicians that challenges each to think independently, dispute their own peers and still be conducive of making advancements.

The displacement of Syrian’s as a result of war is an issue that is extremely prevalent in today’s society. It can be safely stated that the question of whether or not to allow refugees into our country is an ethical one. There are many that would say that these refugees are a great responsibility and bring with them, undeniable risks. To these people, I would say, that despite the possible dangers, we as humans are naturally altruistic and are presented with undeniable philosophical reasoning regarding the importance of caring for distant others.

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either

Kant's picture argues that our sensory inputs do not contain tags that identify objects as the way you know them. For example different patches of light indicate a tree, but there is no tree tag that you receive with those patches. Kant's picture argues that what we perceive is the world of experiences created by our minds to represent the world in itself. We create those tags based on pure forms of experience.

The Kant’s Categorical Imperative test is defined as In the ethical system of Immanuel Kant, an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In my opinion, Caryn’s decision to take the $500 to delete her review off of a travel advice website would pass the test. My reasoning for saying that is because although her experience was horrific her decision was logical because she was reimbursed for the money she lost because of her stay at the hotel which was desirable for her personal motive to receive some type of monetary gift and to be recognized by the company. Unfortunately, it was a honest decision because others wont be aware of the type of horrible customer service this

It is clear from the case study that Alistair knows the contract is unorthodox. The problem he faces is whether he should overlook the bribe or report it to the board. The board of directors expects Alistair to tell the truth and report the bribe because of: his position as Chief Legal Officer, the board has a very strong ethics policy and they are wary of unethical activities.

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?