Back from the Dead: A Deontology Study

The theory that best describes the case: Back From the Dead is Deontology. That theory of Deontology is "the study of duty." The theory of Deontology states that the situation that one may find themselves in does not matter for the use of reasoning. Deontology deals with command imperatives. That is using the word ought to make a claim. Deontology is about a person's duty as a professional to fulfill their obligation to their clients and themselves.

The case that provides a moral dilemma is: Back from the Dead. This case is about Dr. Cee who is a veterinarian with a well-established practice in a small city. His client Ms. Kay has a dog-named Sandy that has been diagnosed with a rare blood disease. The vet only knew of one experimental treatment for the disease, but it was expensive, lengthy and very uncomfortable for the dog. It also had been 95 percent ineffective in laboratory testing. The client decided not to treat the dog and have the dog put to sleep because she did not want the dog to suffer any longer. The moral dilemma comes in because the doctor went ahead and started treatment on the dog because he felt most researchers had made crucial mistakes and that he might be able to treat the dog effectively. He did not tell Ms. Kay about the experimental treatment because of her concern about the discomfort of the dog. The dog was free of all symptoms in a month and he returned the dog to Ms. Kay without making her pay for the treatment despite the thousands of dollars it costed to treat the dog.

There is many different ways to look at this case. For Dr. Cee, he has a moral obligation to fulfill with his job to respect the client's wishes. The client did not want him to go through with the procedur...

... middle of paper ...

...e not really valid ways to come to a moral decision. Virtue Ethics deals with the process that will make the client happy. The client clearly wanted the dog not to suffer, but the vet went against her wishes. Utilitarianism deals with the act of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The vet clearly went against the client's wishes and put the dog through pain not knowing the outcome. Each of these ways of solving the moral dilemma do not have enough evidence to prove they are better ways to solve the moral dilemma than using Deontology.

In conclusion, the way the veterinarian handle the moral dilemma was probably not the best way to handle the situation. Although the dog lived, he clearly went against his client's wishes. In the professional world there are ethical rules to abide by and he did not choose the correct way to handle the moral dilemma.