Consequences Of Not Giving Mrs. Stevens's Act-Utilitarian Ethics

1967 Words 8 Pages
Act-Utilitarian doctor: According to the act-utilitarian, the right act is the one that, out of all the actions available, would result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number. If Dr. Stevens follows act-utilitarian ethics, Dr. Stevens would give Mrs. Kelsey the antibiotics to ease her mind. The specific actions that are open to the Dr. Stevens in the case would be to either give Mrs. Kelsey ciprofloxacin, or to not give Mrs. Kelsey ciprofloxacin. The likely near term consequences of giving Mrs. Kelsey the ciprofloxacin would be easing of Mrs. Kelsey’s mind, and would cause her to not buy ciprofloxacin on the internet and risk taking it without any information on it. The likely near term consequences of not giving Mrs. Kelsey the ciprofloxacin …show more content…
If Dr. Stevens subscribed to a rule-utilitarian, Dr. Stevens would not prescribe Mrs. Kelsey with the antibiotics, but would help her with advice about the drugs if she does end up buying them online, but he would also advise her not to buy them online. The rule that would govern a case like this would be the rule for physicians to not prescribe antibiotics to those people who do not need them. This can cause antibiotic resistance by bacteria which can cause serious problems in society. If an antibiotics resistance happens for the “only drug approved by the FDA” in the case of Anthrax, that could be extremely harmful for society as a whole and create national unrest and unhappiness. The rule-utilitarian would stick to this rule and try his hardest to try and get Mrs. Kelsey to not buy ciprofloxacin online by explaining the risks of both antibiotic resistance, and possible medical injuries to herself from the medicine. She says she “could” get it online, not that she will, so Dr. Stevens has an obligation by not giving her the drug to also try and convince her not to purchase it online. The rule that every doctor follows is to not prescribe medicine that patients do not need, and in this case Mrs. Kelsey does not need this medication and it could cause serious …show more content…
Steinbock wishes to make sure that parents are fully informed about their child’s health and able to make decisions based on that information about their children and what could come of disabilities in their child’s life. If a child is diagnosed with a disability prenatally, the parents should be informed of all options to help the child and all problems that could arise because of the disability as well. Being a parent of a child with disabilities as well creates its own hardships on the parents and parents should be informed about those as well. This will help the parents make a good decision about what they want to do going forward with the child they have created. Ultimately, it is the parent’s decision as well whether they want to bring the child into the world as well, and Steinbock believes that autonomy should be returned to the parents in this decision. Also, parents should not feel morally inferior to others if they cannot face the hardships that may come with being a parent of a child with disabilities. Prenatal testing can help parents return autonomy to themselves, and help them to be more informed about disabilities that could face their children. Steinbock believes that society can also have both, prenatal testing to screen for disabilities and also an accepting society for those people who are faced with

Related Documents