1. As a Utilitarian, to judge an action right, all of the people affected and the consequent happiness and sadness have to be measured. Regards to Hal Crane, his happiness of acting out murder and cannibalism needs to be weighed against the unhappiness of the victim and her family or acquaintances. By looking at those two factors, one might argue alerting the authorities to stop Crane might be the right thing to do; however, as Dr. Wolfe is one of many professionals that rely on patients to open up to them for them in order to treat the patients, in the long run can ruin the relationships between doctors and psychologists to patients. The loss of trust and the loss of ability to treat future patients might be an agreement against Dr. Wolfe
…show more content…
Act Utilitarian might lean more towards the first argument of altering the authorities as it seems it produces the most happiness at that particular moment. Although the act of alerting authorities can save a life, the patients opening up can save more which is a Rule Utilitarian argument.
2. There are multiple obligations for Dr. Wolfe which include: duties of non-maleficence and duties of fidelity. Both of these are prima facie duties but only one is an actual duty. Ross considers the consequences of an action but that alone does not make an action right unlike an Utilitarian. With the conflicting duties to prevent harm and to keep patient confidentiality, there is no real way to decipher which one is the right actual duty. Looking at the possible consequence of a lady getting murdered, altering the authorities cannot be deemed wrong and …show more content…
The Tarasoff case is a similar case where a student murdered someone and told the therapist beforehand. For the Tarasoff case in particular, the therapist did warn the authorities but the victim on the other hand was not. The major difference to Problem 1 to the Tarasoff case is the victim for the Tarasoff case was named compared to the ambiguous women in their early twenties for Problem 1 case. Justice Torbriner would urge Dr. Wolfe to alert the authorities as it is an obligation to protect the victim. Justice Clark on the other hand would say the law should not interfere with patient confidentiality as it is the backbone of psychiatric and psychology treatment. It seems Justice Torbriner is acting with an Act Utilitarian principle; Justice Clark seems to be following Rule Utilitarian principles. Justice Torbriner looks at the possible danger towards society compared to the wishes of Poddar, who wants to commit the crime. Weighing the happiness of one person of acting out the murder compared to the sadness of someone’s death, and the mourning of others, this should be prevented at the cost of the intended murderer. Justice Clark also looks at the consequence but also the morally good thing to do. Future treatment and the ruined patient confidentiality might cause some people not to seek treatment which can increase more violence. Also the patient confidentiality will be ruined if the other rule of alerting authorities were to be implemented as it contradicts the
Act Utilitarian might lean more towards the first argument of altering the authorities as it seems it produces the most happiness at that particular moment. Although the act of alerting authorities can save a life, the patients opening up can save more which is a Rule Utilitarian argument.
2. There are multiple obligations for Dr. Wolfe which include: duties of non-maleficence and duties of fidelity. Both of these are prima facie duties but only one is an actual duty. Ross considers the consequences of an action but that alone does not make an action right unlike an Utilitarian. With the conflicting duties to prevent harm and to keep patient confidentiality, there is no real way to decipher which one is the right actual duty. Looking at the possible consequence of a lady getting murdered, altering the authorities cannot be deemed wrong and …show more content…
The Tarasoff case is a similar case where a student murdered someone and told the therapist beforehand. For the Tarasoff case in particular, the therapist did warn the authorities but the victim on the other hand was not. The major difference to Problem 1 to the Tarasoff case is the victim for the Tarasoff case was named compared to the ambiguous women in their early twenties for Problem 1 case. Justice Torbriner would urge Dr. Wolfe to alert the authorities as it is an obligation to protect the victim. Justice Clark on the other hand would say the law should not interfere with patient confidentiality as it is the backbone of psychiatric and psychology treatment. It seems Justice Torbriner is acting with an Act Utilitarian principle; Justice Clark seems to be following Rule Utilitarian principles. Justice Torbriner looks at the possible danger towards society compared to the wishes of Poddar, who wants to commit the crime. Weighing the happiness of one person of acting out the murder compared to the sadness of someone’s death, and the mourning of others, this should be prevented at the cost of the intended murderer. Justice Clark also looks at the consequence but also the morally good thing to do. Future treatment and the ruined patient confidentiality might cause some people not to seek treatment which can increase more violence. Also the patient confidentiality will be ruined if the other rule of alerting authorities were to be implemented as it contradicts the