Essay on The Doctrine of Double Effect

Katz states, “the conviction that physicians should decide what is best for their patients, and, therefore, that the authority and power to do so should remain bested in them, continued to have deep hold on the practices of the medical profession “(214).

Hook: “ It is easier to commit murder than to justify it” (Aemilius Papinianus). Justifying that someone is innocent or guilty of murder is difficult-- it’s hard to tell if they actually intentionally committed the crime.

A patient is the primary focus in healthcare, therefore the patients shall be treated with respect and dignity. Patients granting professional authorities to help them with their suffrage from illness has ensued

Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.

Patient’s fifth right is for respect and care without discrimination from all members in the healthcare field. The right to confidentiality and privacy of their health information is sixth on the bill of rights and addresses their right to read, copy and request corrections to their medical record, to talk privately their medical providers and be assured their healthcare information is secure. The seventh right is for patients to have a “fair, fast, and objective review of any health care complaints” (Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, 1998). And finally our eighth right as patients are our responsibilities we have as the consumer of healthcare services. Patients need to comply with the orders of the medical provider so they can get and stay well. As a patient you must treat other patients and healthcare workers with respect, pay your medical bills in a timely manner, and abide by your selected healthcare plans coverage. As patients become more involved in the total healthcare process they increase the success of their treatment while assisting in lowering associated costs without a reduction in the quality of the healthcare they receive.

In part 1 of this essay, we will examine the difference between factual causation and legal causation. In part 2, we will examine the judgements in both cases and how the courts applied the material contribution test to both. In part 3, our analytical section, we will examine how both of these cases have blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation and argue that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law for future cases.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

It is important that the patient is aware not only of their rights, but of their individual responsibilities.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Williams also delivers the idea of agent-regret which, to him, matters to the person in the unlucky case more than any extrinsic moral judgments. Agent-regret is defined as “thought being formed in part by first personal conceptions of how one might have acted otherwise”, (Williams, p.27), and required “a first-personal subject-matter” and “not yet merely a particular kind of psychological content, but also a particular kind of expression”, (Williams, 27). Hence, even if the driver A is morally treated as equal as driver B, the agent-regret of guilt may follow him to the

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

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

Client is a person who requires medical care. The client’s family is whoever the client say who his or her family is. Client’s rights, which a client is entitled to receive service from his/her regular physician unless he/she has been advised that the client/doctor relationship has been terminated, that is assuming that the client is sincere and honest one. A client is also entitled to be served or be advised that service is not available at the usual address but a comparable service is available at another practice and that arrangements have been made with that practice. As to quality of service, the client can expect to receive service of the quality that would be provided

Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.