Ethical theory is the basis for this course. I'll lecture on it when we get to London, but it is really important for you to complete all the readings on theory. Let's use this post for 2 purposes:
1. asking questions about the theories
2. applying the theories to Case 4. We'll do this on a first-come, first-served basis. Whoever goes first gets first choice on which theory to apply. The second person gets second choice, and so on until everyone has posted a mini-analysis of Case 4 from the perspective on one of the theories. So, if Sarah posts first, she'll get her choice of which theory to apply. If she uses Utilitarianism, the next person won't be able to use that theory.
What are the differences between the Utilitarian view and Kantian view on the value of autonomy?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism?
I am going to apply Ross’s theory of prima facie duties to case 4. W. D. Ross proposed this deontological theory to provide a defensible account of situations that confront us with a conflict of duties. The endodontist incurs the prima facie duty to act in the best medical interest of the patient, a duty of fidelity. The best medical interest of an orally healthy patient would be to dismiss the request of performing root canals on each tooth. In this case, the dentist also acquires the prima facie duties of nonmaleficence (not injuring others). If the dentist were to perform the root canals, he runs the risk of causing injury through infection which is likely to develop since the teeth are not diseased and not extracted.
I thought I had posted this last night, but it is not here this morning, so if later this post is repeated I apologize.--I believe my thoughts on Case 4 align with act utilitarianism. To reach a decision the endodontist first has to think of his options. In this case, he may either perform roots canals on all of Patrick’s teeth or not perform the root canals. Next, consider the consequences of each. By performing the root canals, Patrick will be at risk for damage to one or more of his teeth. It’s possible that Patrick will also be psychologically encouraged to pursue other unnecessary procedures that coincide with his survivalist thinking. It is also possible that, later on, Patrick will develop a condition that normally would create tooth pain as an initial symptom. Without that symptom, the condition would be allowed to worsen and, once discovered, be difficult to treat. If the endodontist does not perform the procedure, Patrick will be in fear of developing a toothache. Based on these consequences, it is better not to perform the procedure.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Sarah's question, I think utilitarianism is a subcategory of consequentialism, meaning utilitarianism focuses on maximizing pleasure over pain (a consequentialist and therefore teleological theory), but is specific to maximizing the pleasure for the group, as opposed to that of an individual (which would imply ethical egoism, another subcategory of consequentialism).
ReplyDeleteCase 4, when looked at from a rule-utilitarian standpoint, begs the question of whether the universal rule “do not bring harm to another person” should incorporate the exception “…unless it is requested by the person being harmed.” Performing root canals on all of Patrick M’s teeth does harm to otherwise healthy tissue and could cause Patrick M a lot of pain during the procedure. Yet, Patrick M is aware of this and still wants the procedure. His reasons for enduring the initial discomfort are that it will bring him a higher level of satisfaction afterwards (a “no pain, no gain” type of mentality, perhaps). If the procedure is done, he will be saved from ever having a toothache and his survivalist fears will be lessened. Similarly, the dentist-patient relationship of trust and compliance will be strengthened. One could argue that if this exception is not adopted, people may be forced to do such procedures themselves, creating even more harm to themselves. At the same time, if the dentist agrees to the procedure, people may begin to request more outlandish procedures (I already see a parallel to this with plastic surgery). Therefore, a rule-utilitarian could argue both sides of the case, making it a theory that fulfills the first requirement for a good ethical theory, but fails to give effective guidance where most needed.
I just realized that since one form of utilitarianism was already covered, I mights should analyze this case from another ethical standpoint. If looked at from a casuist methodology, one could appeal to similar cases that support the right to act as an autonomous human being (although one could argue Patrick M is not acting autonomously, but being constrained by his own survivalism). At the same time, one could argue fort the dentist's need to be paternalistic, based on laws already in existence such as seatbelt laws. It is unclear what decision a casuist would come to.
ReplyDeleteExcellent comments, ladies. Rea has correctly answered the question about the relationship of utilitarianism & consequentialism.
ReplyDeleteKant & Utilitarianism both value autonomy very highly. But for the Utilitarian, autonomy *could* be forfeited if doing so would increase overall happiness/goodness. Kant would never forfeit autonomy.
Kantian Deontology applies to the physician and his duties to the patient, but does the patient have duties to the physician? Kant would never forfeit autonomy. However, the patient may be using the physician merely as a means. Patrick M wants a root canal on all if his teeth but really has no medical reason to receive this procedure. Patrick could be using the dentist to get what he wants. His motivation is not justified by an real important reason to receive the root canals.
ReplyDeleteI have to be honest, I not sure how to answer this question? Kantian Deontology -Kant’s Reasoning: Kant’s argument appears to be that other things we might consider to be good—intelligence, wit, judgment, talents, etc., and even such things as wealth, power, honor, health and “that complete well-being and contentment with one’s condition which is called happiness”—can “become extremely bad and harmful” if the will that controls them is not good". I truly can see where this is good for Patrick M and does he fall under the category of non contentment by wanting a procedure that is not necessary? Honestly I am a little confused.
ReplyDelete