MANUEL PAOLO Q.

MATUGAS BSPT I-B

GEC-ETHICS – PT/OT
TOPICS-7-9
ACTIVITY 4- ETHICAL CASE ANALYSIS
(A SHORT-TERM PAPER)

1. Construct your own ethical case scenario that challenges in complex situation about
normative theory where you can apply the different moral framework:

A. VIRTUE
B. DEONTOLOGY
C. CONSEQUENTIALISM – UTILITARIANISM

I successfully became a doctor after many years. Sad thing it was also the 3 rd World War
started by the United States and China. I was assigned in a hospital, a war rehabilitation where
you will see injured Americans. I have 3 persons with me, person A is dying and he cannot even
talk and unconscious, and there is nothing I can do to save him. On the other hand, Person B
need a lung transplant operation, and person C needs blood. The blood and the lung of person
A is a very good option to be a donor. If I were not able to do the operation, all of them will die.
To save the two persons, I need to sacrifice Person A.

2. If possible, follow this step-by step frameworks in analyzing your case studies

a. State the nature of the ethical issue you have initially constructed.

The ethical issue here centralizes the moral dilemma I had, I need to choose if I will save
Person B and C’s life even though I know it means that I am putting an end of Person A’s life
(because the operation will be needing his lung and blood just to save person B and C).

b. List the relevant facts.

 Person A is dying and unconscious. There is nothing to do to save his life.

 Person B can be saved, but it means to sacrifice the lungs of Person A, that will
somehow lead to his death.
  Person C can be saved, but it means to sacrifice the blood of Person A, that will
somehow lead to his death.
 If the operation cannot be performed as soon as possible, then B and C will die sooner
or later—together with person A

c. Clarify the underlying values

 Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse as a donor. For this scenario, we
cannot determine if person A will refuse or not, for the reason he is unconscious.
 Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. In regards to
person A, using his lung and blood for the operation is not the best interest of the said
patient. On the other hand, the best interest for patient B and C is to execute the operation
to be saved.
 Non—maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. It will be harmful for the side of Person A.
Harmless for Person B and C.
 Utility – to promote more-good than harm. Saving two lives is better, than letting them all
die.
 Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets
what treatment.

d. Consider the consequences.

I. CONSEQUENCE A: Two lives will be saved, and one will die

 Cause the greatest amount of happiness.
 Less evil or create the highest good
II. CONSEQUENCE B: The three of them will die
 Cause less amount of happiness.
 More evil

e. Identify some relevant rights/duties of its stakeholders

 Duty and Obligation Human Rights Legal Rights
Doctor  To save lives.  Everyone has the right to
 Doctors will not consent organs or freedom of opinion and
tissues to be traded. expression; this right
 The doctor should never includes freedom to hold
participate, second or admit acts opinions without
of torture or sacrifice one patient interference and to seek,
to save others, whatever the receive and impart
arguments invoked. information and ideas
 The physician has a duty to try to through any media and
cure or improve patients’ health regardless of frontiers.
whenever it is possible. When it is
no longer possible, an obligation
remains to implement appropriate
measures to achieve their welfare,
even though it could result in a
shortening of life
 The doctor shall never
intentionally cause the death of
any patient, even if expressly
requested by the latter
SOURCE: OMC, Code of Medical Ethics

Person A  Everyone has the right to  No torture, force,

life, liberty and security of violence, threat,
person. intimidation, or
 All human beings are any other means
born free and equal in which vitiate the
dignity and rights. They free will shall be
are endowed with reason used against him.
and conscience and Secret detention
should act towards one places, solitary,
another in a spirit of incommunicado,
brotherhood. or other similar
forms of
detention are
prohibited.
Person B  Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of
person.

Person C  Everyone has the right to

life, liberty and security of
person.

f. Reflect on which virtues you will apply.

COURAGE
 Bravery. It is the quality or state of having or showing mental or moral strength to face
danger, fear, or difficulty. Bravery doesn’t really mean like you are fighting bigger than you.
It is all about rational thinking to do what is necessary or good in general. Bravery somehow
supports the idea of saving person B and C.
 Integrity. Having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. Morally, saving the two
persons who has the capability to survive somehow shows integrity. Integrity talks about
doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. And the right thing to do is to save
lives.

g. Consider the relevant relationships.

 There is a strong deontological proscription against the killing of patients. Doctors should
not kill their patients. But if you will follow the framework of deontology, you will find three
person’s dead overtime. Yes, deontology is very easy to follow, but in a normal setting the
consequence of your actions has a big impact to your life. If you choose the framework of
consequentialism – utilitarianism, you prefer to save two more lives, but you as a doctor
violated the code of ethics as a Doctor, ended up killing person A just to save other lives.
And following the framework of virtue, you will find yourself saving the two persons, behind
this is courage to face and use the organ of a dying just to save two more person.

h. Develop the potential responses.

a) Save person B and person C, even though you know that you just put a period of Person
A’s life. By this response, you somehow choose the framework of consequentialism-
utilitarianism.
b) Just do your duty until the end. Don’t use/put an end of person A’s life just to save the
other two persons. It is a violation of your occupational code of ethics. By this response,
you somehow choose the framework of consequentialism- utilitarianism.

i. Use moral imagination to consider each option based on the above considerations
I used “Kohlberg- Moral Development” to have a clearer perspective for the things to consider.
a) Save person B and person C b) Don’t use/put an end of person A’s
life
Obedience The operation should be done The operation should not be done for
and since Person A is dying already. the reason it is immoral to take
punishment Better to save more people. someone’s life or else I will be put in jail
for performing the operation without
asking person A

Individualism As a doctor, it will be very good Prison will not be a good place, and it
and Exchange to hear if I were able to perform would be better to let the three die, than
an operation. saving the other two by killing someone)

Good Boy and Saving lives is way better, it is the It should not be done because it is still
Good Girl society wants—to be a good considered as murder and it is a crime
person. and it is very unfair to person A

Law and If we have the opportunity to
Order save more in a particular
situation, it is always better to
save them than let them die even
knowing they still have the
chance to live.
The law prohibits killing. Even though
person A is in the process of dying, we as
a human does not have the right to take
his life at that very moment. That will
somehow contribute you to murder).

Social law does not mean that the law is Everyone has a right to live, and no
Contract necessarily good for everyone. person has the right to take away from
Saving more will be better. you

Universal Saving a two-lives has more Every person in this world dies, so it is
Ethical fundamental value, it is also the better to let them die on their own than
Principle less evil way. killing them.

LEGEND:
 PRE-MORAL
 CONVENTIONAL
 POST-CONVENTIONA
j. Choose the best option.

“Nasa huli ang pagsisi”

My final option for this scenario, I think I will save two more person by sacrificing the dying
person or person A. I believe it is a good decision for the reason it is less evil, and I know it will
cause greater amount of happiness. In other words, the framework I choose is
CONSEQUENTIALISM – UTILITARIANISM. For me, what matter most are the things that will
cause the greatest amount of happiness. Letting the three persons die, is less happy and more-
evil. At the end of the day, as a human being, I will be happy at the end saving two lives than
watching them all die. “Nasa huli ang pagsisi” for those people who don’t care for the
consequences of their actions.

k. Consider what could be done in the future to prevent the problem

The wars:
We should use the advancement of technology as our advantage to stop wars. For now,
we can express and give full support to the establishment of an International Criminal Court so
that national leaders can be tried for all egregious war crimes at the end of any hostilities.
Expressing our insights may lead to impeachment of all leaders who commit egregious crimes
must be held to account under international law.
Lack of medical supplies:
As early as now, the government should somehow think in advance. They should
consider to upgrade the system in the Health Department. They should allocate enough funds
and budget.