SCHOOL OF NURSING AND ALLIED HEALTH STUDIES

Nursing Department

NCM108 Learning Assessment: Learning Task No. 1

Moral Problems and Questions

Direction: Please read each statements carefully. Answer the questions to the best of
your knowledge and ability. Please refer to the rubric for grading and points system.
Only submit a type-written output on or before the set deadline.

Moral Problem/Question #1: In Rawls’s view, justice is fairness – e.g., “to each his due”.
Would it be fair to raise a severely deformed baby with other children in the family? Would the other
children get what they are due alongside the inordinate requirements of time, energy, and financial resources
that would be required to raise or save the severely malformed child? Or, if the other children did receive
what they are due, would there be sufficient time, energy, and other resources to attend to the needs of the
deformed child? Discuss this matter to one of your peers and justify your moral decision in light of any
ethical theory of your choice.
- Yes, since the infant with severe deformity needs extra care and love. The deformed child should be
given priority by the parents, which his siblings should understand. For him to get stronger, more effort, time,
and focus are required. Would the other children get what they are due alongside the inordinate requirements of
time, energy, and financial resources that would be required to raise or save the severely malformed child? Yes,
since they are still treated equally, especially when it comes to caring for and attending to their disabled brother.
Or, if the other children did receive what they are due, would there be sufficient time, energy, and other
resources to attend to the needs of the deformed child? I believe the parents will continue to have the particular
requirements of the malformed baby since regular children do not require special attention/care. According to
Rawls' theory is that humans (like us) who see themselves as free and equal should be able to accept and
approve as morally defensible the rules of justice that govern our basic social institutions and personal behavior
since they are fair and rational.

Moral Problem/Question #2: If you happen to know someone with severe deformities, would you suggest
the parents opt for multiple operations, ordinary measures, nature to take its course, or put an end to the
baby’s life by painless means? Justify your moral decision.
- In reality, it depends on the circumstances. Even if the child has severe malformations, surgery may be
an option if the parents are capable enough to have the child treated by specialists. I believe I can advise that
they can undergo surgery. If the baby can handle the surgery and the parents are ready for the hardships they will
go through, it is okay for them to undergo the surgery. But if the baby's parents lack the funds to have their child
treated, I can advise them to end the baby's life painlessly. Why? Because failing to do so will only make things
challenging for both them and the infant. Although it's difficult now, they must accept the situation because they
cannot afford the surgery. Since their infant has severe malformations, medical treatment alone will not be
sufficient to heal the baby. I am a nursing student who merely offers advice, and at the end of the day, it is still
their choice that matters. However, if they don't have any money but still want their baby to live, I can advise
them to let it live, but don't expect it to live very long. As a result of the defects, they only tortured their baby.
Joseph Fletcher does not only favor the expulsion of a malformed fetus and the decision to terminate a
"subhuman life in extremis" in old age but also endorses the merciful and the painless killing of horribly
deformed babies and terminally ill patients.
 Moral Problem/Question #3: A 55-year-old man fell off his motorcycle in a vehicular accident and
suffered an extensive brain injury. Surgeons performed an emergency craniotomy and connected him to a
life-support system, which kept him mechanically alive. For the most part, his body temperature, pulse,
blood pressure, and respiration were normal. An EEG, however, showed flat lines, offering no clinical
evidence of viability or cortical activity. The respirator was cut off, and the patient was declared dead.

Suppose the surgeons were to ask you (e.g. as the victim’s spouse) to donate your husband’s (or wife’s)
heart and kidneys for transplant in another patient in the same hospital who needed them very badly. What
would be your decision and why?
- Why do you think I should opt to donate my husband's organs to the patient who needs them the
most? My husband won't come back to life even if I don't donate his organs. I should thus give to the patient in
need as they have a higher chance of survival than my husband. Since the head is the most dangerous area of the
body and was the most severely injured in the accident that occurred. I have long accepted that he will not
survive, or to put it another way, the only thing that keeps him alive right now is the machine, therefore I lost
him a long time ago. Therefore, it would be better for him to donate his organs to others as they would also
benefit from it and might even save a life. Despite the fact that you have lost a loved one, you get the feeling that
you are still with him and that he is alive but in a different body. He will live on because of the organs you
donated from your husband. It also exceptionally good to help others and save a life. According to James
Rachels opts for eunthanasia, believing it to be humans as it allows suffering to be brought to a speedy end. In
his view if the intentions and situations are of a certain kind, then eunthanasia can be deemed morally right.

NCM108 Healthcare Ethics – Learning Task No. 1 SDCA-SNAHS BS Nursing Level 2 1- Page 1 of 1