Consequentialism states that every action is related to rightness or wrongness, based on its consequences (Hope et al, 2008).For Ann, the referral from Alison was intended to provide further clarification. On the other hand, the positive diagnoses provided by Professor Lott and Dr Pound despite the difficulty encountered, resulted in Ann giving birth to a severely disabled child.ok
Utilitarianism focuses on the majorities and that individuals should aim towards the greatest good over bad (Hope et al, 2008). Relating this to Ann 's circumstance, another scan was performed by Professor Lott based on Alison 's referral, although Ann was uncertain with his diagnosis. Ann then consulted Dr Pound and was provided with two positive diagnoses with …show more content…
The fact that Alison referred Ann benefited her, as there was no restriction within the professional input . Therefore, Professor Lott did perform a thorough scan although to an extent, he compromised Ann 's autonomy as his diagnosis was unclear to her and Ann was not in the position to decide if her pregnancy should continue. This resulted in consulting Dr …show more content…
He provided a thorough scan and obtained measurements to ensure an accurate diagnosis was given, which is also supported by Dr Pound. Thus, both doctors acted to minimise harm towards Ann. However, both doctors detected the presence of the anterior horns of the lateral ventricles, whereas MRI revealed erroneous echoes and that the structures identified were absent. Nevertheless with providing optimal scans, unintentional harm was caused. As a result from the reports provided, Ann decided to continue with her pregnancy which resulted in a catastrophic event. It led to causing this poorly, severed disabled child to be born into Ann 's family in which they are taking exceptions. Also, the exemption of suing Pound is questioned as he also caused equivalent
Utilitarianism focuses on the majorities and that individuals should aim towards the greatest good over bad (Hope et al, 2008). Relating this to Ann 's circumstance, another scan was performed by Professor Lott based on Alison 's referral, although Ann was uncertain with his diagnosis. Ann then consulted Dr Pound and was provided with two positive diagnoses with …show more content…
The fact that Alison referred Ann benefited her, as there was no restriction within the professional input . Therefore, Professor Lott did perform a thorough scan although to an extent, he compromised Ann 's autonomy as his diagnosis was unclear to her and Ann was not in the position to decide if her pregnancy should continue. This resulted in consulting Dr …show more content…
He provided a thorough scan and obtained measurements to ensure an accurate diagnosis was given, which is also supported by Dr Pound. Thus, both doctors acted to minimise harm towards Ann. However, both doctors detected the presence of the anterior horns of the lateral ventricles, whereas MRI revealed erroneous echoes and that the structures identified were absent. Nevertheless with providing optimal scans, unintentional harm was caused. As a result from the reports provided, Ann decided to continue with her pregnancy which resulted in a catastrophic event. It led to causing this poorly, severed disabled child to be born into Ann 's family in which they are taking exceptions. Also, the exemption of suing Pound is questioned as he also caused equivalent