Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Interpersonal relationship with family members essay
The relationship between family members
Family and relationship between family members
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Interpersonal relationship with family members essay
Heinz Dilemma Several ethical dilemmas arise in Heinz’s Dilemma by Lawrence Kohlberg. Some of them that come to mind are, should Heinz steal the drug knowing that he may have consequences to pay, should the wife knowingly allow the husband to steal the drug and should the druggist only think of himself and the profit that he is going to make. It seems that every argument that one can make in each of these dilemmas makes perfect sense; however, no matter which dilemma one chooses there is always a way to refute the argument. If we first look at the husband’s dilemma, one can argue that even though it is considered a crime to steal, it is also easily understood that there is no price that you can put on someone’s life. The husband does not seem to care that there are consequences that are involved with breaking into the druggist’s store and stealing the medication because it will save the life of his wife. He can only hope that if he is charged for the crimes that the judge or jury will be lenient since he only stole the medicine in order to save a life and did not commit an act of crime for selfish reasons. The husband needs to consider that there is a reason for laws and that if the laws are not obeyed, our society would be in total chaos. From the husband’s perspective it is wrong to watch his wife die knowing that there is a cure, but it is also wrong to steal the needed medication to prevent the death of his wife. The husband is forced to commit one wrong to avoid committing another. One other perspective to think about is that the husband may feel like in order to be a “good” husband that he needs to do whatever he can to get the medicine. If we look at the situation from the wife’s perspective, she may feel that sh... ... middle of paper ... ... be forgiven for doing what I feel is the only option. I do not think that I would be able to live with myself if my loved one died just because I was afraid of what others would think of me or of losing my freedom. I feel like the druggist is being selfish in this situation and should think about all of the lives that he can save. Even though the druggist probably endured many expenses with the creation of the radium, hopefully he created it first to save lives and then maybe to make a good living from it. I think it is always good to put yourself in someone else’s situation before you make decisions. After all, I firmly believe that what comes around goes around. Stealing the medicine may cause jail time, loss of money for the doctor and possibly being judged by others that do not agree with your decision does not weigh as heavy as trying to save a life.
The ethical principle of nonmaleficence demands to first do no harm and in this case protect the patient from harm since she cannot protect. Nurses must be aware in situations such as this, that they are expected to advocate for patients in a right and reasonable way. The dilemma with nonmaleficence is that Mrs. Boswell has no chance of recovery because of her increasing debilitating mental incapability and the obvious harm that outweighs the intended benefits. If the decision were to continue treatment, suffering of the patient and family would be evident. Autonomy is the right to making own decisions and freedom to choose a plan of action. When making decisions regarding treatment of another person, it is important to respect the expressed wishes of the individual. John says that his mother would want to live as long as she could, but questions arise related to her quality of life and perception of prolonged suffering by prolonging the dying process. In BOOK states that quality of life changes throughout one’s life ...
These ethical dilemmas were a big part of the story novel and caused most of the conflict that arose in the novel. One of the ethical dilemmas was David telling the nurse to bring his daughter to an Institution. By making that decision to send his daughter away based on his past experience with his sick sister and assumption about how the future will be. This connects to the ethical topic of techniques of neutralization by Joseph Heath. He uses an excuse to prove that his decision wasn’t unethical when it really was. According to the Denial of responsibility technique, he believed that he had no choice in sending Phoebe away, David saw it as the only option because he was so focus on his past experience. He imagined what Phoebe’s life would be like and the likely toll of caring for her would have on the family. Caused him to see Phoebe as a threat, with only one option to solve the
There are various ethical dilemmas surrounding Josie's Story. "An ethical dilemma is a situation in which an individual is compelled to choose between two actions that will affect the welfare of a sentient being, and both actions are reasonably justified as being good, nether action is readily justified as being good, or the goodness of the actions are uncertain" (Beckford, 2012). The ethical dilemmas involved in Josie's Story are the lesser of two evils in which both choices are bad. The ethical dilemma in this case involves that the nurse withholds the methadone based on Mrs. Kings wishes, causing serious complications of withdrawal such as diarrhea and an upset stomach. On the other hand, the nurse administers the methadone and follows the orders of the pain management team even though Josie is severely de...
Doctors work under intense pressure, and if a pill could fix a patient’s problems than many saw nothing wrong with that. What exacerbated the problem was that many hospitals also changed their modus operandi with regards to treatment. In some hospitals, “doctors were told they could be sued if they did not treat pain aggressively, which meant with opiates (95). However once the patient became addicted and could no longer get their prescription legally refilled, the drug dealers saw their chance. What is surprising is the fact that pharmaceutical companies acted in the same manner as drug dealers. Both sides did not care about the end user, and the problems they would have to deal with after using what was given to them. Their motive was purely to profit as much as possible, and they did not care about who would get hurt as a result of their
Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.
...for an aid-in-dying drug, shall submit two oral requests, a minimum of 15 days apart, and a written request to his or her attending physician. The attending physician shall directly, and not through a designee, receive all three requests required pursuant to this section. Some people will struggle with conflicting ethical theories such as the Divine Command Theory which states that the morally right action is the one that God commands. Or others may struggle with their view of Natural Law which states the morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature. These are all valid and acceptable ethical standpoints, however, no one knows what they would do being faced with a short determined future of pain and decline. Ethical Egoism is the one theory a true decision would come down to, what’s the best action that provides one with the best self-interest.
Abortion has been a political, social, and personal topic for many years now. The woman’s right to choose has become a law that is still debated, argued and fought over, even though it has been passed. This paper will examine a specific example where abortion is encouraged, identify the Christian world views beliefs and resolution as well as the consequences of such, and compare them with another option.
In the situation above a utilitarian would say that stealing the cure is the best option. They would say this because a utilitarian believes if the action maximizes the best consequences for the greatest number of people, and for everyone that would benefit from that action then it is deemed to be ethical. That would be called the greatest happiness principle. They also believe that an action is ethical if it reduces suffering for the greatest amount of people involved. So in your case stealing the cure would be the action with the greater consequences because you wife won’t die and the other doctor wouldn’t be taking a big loss because he is already wealthy. But there is another form of utilitarianism that wouldn’t condone stealing, it’s called act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism says that stealing is bad if there is no good reason for doing so and if the happiness produced is as good as any other act that could be done. In our situation, we are stealing for the well-being of our family and letting your wife doesn’t add up to the happiness you would get if she lives. The previous frameworks described support stealing the cure for your sake and happiness. Therefore, ethical egoism and utilitarianism favor each other drastically in this situation. Is this the right way to go in these circumstances? Well, let’s look at things in another
This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
However, one can reach an ethical decision closest to being fair by understanding what does do right relationships require and what can eventually lead to human flourishing? Human flourishing is the goal of the human life because it leads to ultimate “eudaemonia” that is happiness. According to Panicola, “It is not possible to be in right relationships and ultimately flourish as human beings without developing virtues…” (Panicola 51). When Dr. Derek decides to hide the preeclamptic condition from the patient and her husband, he was abiding by the virtue of empathy because he wanted them to take a break from always being worried about death. Even though his intentions for hiding the truth were good, his decision indicates that he was not successful in upholding the virtue of honesty, integrity and courage. He was not virtuous because the “journey towards virtues requires moral principles” (Panicola 54). The moral principles that apply to this case are the principles of veracity and informed consent, under human dignity and the principles of rationality and stewardship under justice.
An ethical dilemma is only examined in a situation which has the following conditions; the first condition takes place in a situation, when an individual has to make a decision on which course of action is best. The second condition is there must be more than one course of action to choose from. The third action is no matter what course of action is taken, certain ethical principles are conceded. In other terms, there is no perfect result. When defining what forms an ethical dilemma, it is important to make a division between ethics, morals, values, laws and policies.
Although Darnell is aware that stealing’s wrong he understands the importance of obtaining it for Heinz’s wife Heinz. According to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development we can assume that Darnell falls under Level III, post conventional which ranges from 13 years and older (Dacey, 2009, p. 248). I can conclude that he falls under stage six, which, states, “that the individual believes that the best values are supported by the law and if the human need conflicts this the law should be changed. They begin to judge behavior by intention” (Dacey, 2009, p. 248). With this type of mentality we can assume that Darnell is not afraid of punishment, yet he is aware that in order to get what he wants he has to break the law. This case can be very problematic when it comes to dealing with the punishment. Not only will Darnell have a record that shows he is a thief, he could lose his standing as a good person. On the other hand, from Darnell’s perspective Heinz’s wife would have the medicine and the short amount of jail time or the fine would be miniscule in comparison to having her
There were many ethical issues within this case; the first indication of an ethical problem was the administration of an incorrect medication to the patient. The doctor, administration, and providers involved in the care of the patient must decide what is ethically moral when informing the patient. I believe that it is the patient’s right to know that she received the wrong medication for a number of days. Although no major medical consequences occurred, I believe this
Life consists of some sort of cause and effect, making each step a person decides to take a factor in the future they uphold to take. However, now a day, people can’t predict or fully control their own mind over every step they decide to make. That’s why the idea of “feeling justified” for stealing medicine to save someone’s life can be agreeable in the sense that we don’t know precisely where life can take us. If my child is severely ill and I’m unable to buy medicine, I wouldn’t regret stealing the medicine due to that even if is wrong for taking something without legal right, in this case being the medicine, I will know and be assured that I could help save the life of someone who hasn’t truly been given yet the opportunity to make decisions