Biomedical Ethics Philosophy 3514
Larry Cross
Philosophy 3514
In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will accept it. What it all boils down to is, if the physician tells the truth, then Mr. Simpson will refuse the flu shot, likely contract the flu, and possibly die. On the other hand, if the physician lies to Mr. Simpson, then he will accept the flu shot and potentially be okay for the next flu season. The dilemma lies in what the physician should do; lie to the patient or be truthful. When it comes to Mr. Simpson and the flu shot, the physician should tell the truth, plain and simple. If Mr. Simpson refuses the flu shot, then he just refuses the flu shot and therefore he must deal with the consequences brought on by his actions and decisions. In this situation, the probability of death is not 100%, but it is known to be likely. This uncertainty must be weighed out and clearly defined. Taking a deeper look into this situation, one must consider moral ethics, more specifically what it means to act morally. Acting morally is always a difficult and unclear task. We must also consider our obligations and duties, things that are done purely out of goodness and kindness, and not for recognition and reward; considerations of which actions are right and which actions are completely impermissible. We must also consider
Philosophy 3514
In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will accept it. What it all boils down to is, if the physician tells the truth, then Mr. Simpson will refuse the flu shot, likely contract the flu, and possibly die. On the other hand, if the physician lies to Mr. Simpson, then he will accept the flu shot and potentially be okay for the next flu season. The dilemma lies in what the physician should do; lie to the patient or be truthful. When it comes to Mr. Simpson and the flu shot, the physician should tell the truth, plain and simple. If Mr. Simpson refuses the flu shot, then he just refuses the flu shot and therefore he must deal with the consequences brought on by his actions and decisions. In this situation, the probability of death is not 100%, but it is known to be likely. This uncertainty must be weighed out and clearly defined. Taking a deeper look into this situation, one must consider moral ethics, more specifically what it means to act morally. Acting morally is always a difficult and unclear task. We must also consider our obligations and duties, things that are done purely out of goodness and kindness, and not for recognition and reward; considerations of which actions are right and which actions are completely impermissible. We must also consider