I. Identification The five major ethical issues of this case are: 1. Is it right that OSMA fixed the bid by providing equipment and services at a reduced rate to win the bid? 2. Is it right that OSMA’s reputation soared and the benefits that ensued were gained because of a fixed bid? 3. Is it right that Mike, having been included in the conversation about his ability to play, was pressured to make a decision that was against the doctor’s best advice? 4. Is it right that the doctor, having made appropriate medical advice to the team, is pressured to agree to a decision clearly against the client’s best interest? 5. Is it right that a community would benefit from a team that makes decision that may impact the health of Mike for the rest …show more content…
The theory states that it should be applied to every action. The Hedonic Calculus is a formula that is used to calculate what course of action gives the best balance of happiness over unhappiness. I am using a scale of one out of ten for the Hedonic Calculus values. One represents the greatest unhappiness and ten represents euphoria. According to Act Utilitarianism, the morality of situations change on a case to case basis. Another key point of Act Utilitarianism is that of the utility principle or the greatest happiness principle, is that the main idea of Utilitarianism and is the ultimate standard on which Utilitarianism think we should base moral right or wrong. One example the book gives is the right action in any situation is the one that tends to produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for the greatest possible …show more content…
In addition it would theoretically increase their chances of winning the game. I gave a happiness value of 7 out of 10 for the lumberjacks. For mike the happiness level is 6 because he wants the team to win, but will have to risk his health. The happiness level of the citizens of Athens would be 8 because they do not know about his injuries since it was not public knowledge and they would have won the game. OSMA would be about a 6 out of 10 because even though there are benefits to helping Mike, the unethical damage that could be done could eventually come out. The sports fans would have a happiness of 6 because there is a good chance mike could get hurt. For Dr. Jones it would be a 5 because if he gives mike the treatment and he gets permeant damage he would have to live with that fact for the rest of his life. I believe that because a majority of the stakeholders are in agreement on giving Mike the treatment it would be the best course of action because it would bring a lot of happiness. The fans would be excited about bringing home a
Alan Goldman argues that medical paternalism is unjustified except in very rare cases. He states that disregarding patient autonomy, forcing patients to undergo procedures, and withholding important information regarding diagnoses and medical procedures is morally wrong. Goldman argues that it is more important to allow patients to have the ability to make autonomous decisions with their health and what treatment options if any they want to pursue. He argues that medical professionals must respect patient autonomy regardless of the results that may or may not be beneficial to a patient’s health. I will both offer an objection and support Goldman’s argument. I will
Healthcare creates unique dilemmas that must consider the common good of every patient. Medical professionals, on a frequent basis, face situations that require complicated, and at times, difficult decision-making. The medical matters they decide on are often sensitive and critical in regards to patient needs and care. In the Case of Marguerite M and the Angiogram, the medical team in both cases were faced with the critical question of which patient gets the necessary medical care when resources are limited. In like manner, when one patient receives the appropriate care at the expense of another, medical professionals face the possibility of liability and litigation. These medical circumstances place a burden on the healthcare professionals to think and act in the best interest of the patient while still considering the ethical and legal issues they may confront as a result of their choices and actions. Medical ethics and law are always evolving as rapid advances in all areas of healthcare take place.
At first, I believed that a patient should have the say so and get what they demand. I didn’t feel sympathetic for the health care provider one bit. I was able to look through the eyes of a physician and see the trials that they have to go through. It is not easy making the decisions that they have to make. There job is based on decisions, and most of it is the patient’s. “There will certainly be times when I will be faced with a request from a patient or patient’s representative that I will personally find morally difficult, but one that is still legally and ethically acceptable. must be very difficult to work in an area with little control over what you want to do.” (Bradley 1). Even though I do not fully understand a health care providers everyday role, I do know that they are faced with painful options. I personally feel that I can not work in this field for that exact reason. Health care providers play an extremely important role in our society, and others need to look upon
We'll be deliberating two cases from an Ethical point of view so first we need to know the four principal of medical ethics
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision. Patients should be fully conscious and understand the implications of their decision. Everything should be documented possibly even videotaped that way the doctor doesn’t lose their job, receive a lawsuit or worst jail!
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
According to the book Shafer Landau an act utilitarianism is “the version of act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being” (Shafer Landau, G1). In the other words, it means that the act that produces the maximum of the happiness at that time than any other act. Another similar example of this act for the better understanding is, if I have a friend and being with her gives me the most happiness than being with any other friends at that time, but it does not give the same happiness to her and I am unaware about it at that time then it’s also defines as an act utilitarian. It is act utilitarian because I am still getting the most happiness at that time.
In the negotiation for the Federated Science Fund I represented the Stockman Company. The meeting started with a caucus between Turbo and I which set the tone for the negotiation. In the five-minute caucus, we understood that we get the highest payoff by working together and decided to only form a deal with United if it benefited us. This was the main turning point in the negotiation as we returned to United with only high-ball offers: we opened with $220,000 each for Stockman and Turbo, and went only as low as $200,000 each, with $80,000 for United. United presented counter offers throughout, but all of them were below our $200,000 reservation point. Even though United continuously demanded a more inclusive deal, we saw no real benefit and made a deal by splitting $440,000 evenly.
Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.