Howard is a public nurse working with an interdisciplinary team of health care professionals who are responsible to distribute vaccines to a community of immigrants whose English language rates are low. An integral part of the procedure is to receive consent from each resident. The moral issue; however, is that the consent forms are in English and may not be adhering to the nursing competency of ethics and informed consent. As defined by the College of Nurses of Ontario (2013), informed consent is receiving consent from clients who know the benefits, consequences and risks of the procedure or treatment they are receiving. There are two possible courses of action that Howard is must decide upon. The first is that he should continue to collect
…show more content…
The opposing view follows that Howard should continue to distribute vaccinations without acting on the issues defined by the language barrier complication. Bentham’s Act Utilitarian approach underlines this action. In Bentham’s eyes, the consequence of pleasure has intrinsic value, and should be the only means that we should consider when deciding upon our actions (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). Bentham believed that to decide if an act is morally permissible (allowed), we must take into consideration the pleasure and pains of all those who can feel it (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). We do this through hedonic calculus. When considering an act, we must envision all the pleasures and pains that it will cause. Subsequently, we must add all pleasures on one side and all pains on the other (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). If the situation leads to more pleasures than pains, then the act is morally permissible. What qualifies this test is that Bentham beliefs were radically egalitarian (Collier & Haliburdon, 2015, p.7). Essentially, this means that no pleasures are more pleasurable than other pleasures and, similarly, no pains are more painful than other pains. All …show more content…
The reason is that there are several weaknesses within the Utilitarian theory that make the first decision faulty. The first weakness of the utilitarian approach is that Bentham does not take into consideration that some pleasures rate higher in pleasure than others. Similarly, he does not consider that some pains are more painful than other pains (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.12). In modern society, however, we know that pains are qualitative and subjective (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.9). For example, in Howard’s situation, the pain that generates from the residents distrust with the health team may have more value than the pleasure generated from the pets whose owners do not become ill. This, therefore, discredits the egalitarian aspect of his theory. Moreover, another weakness in Bentham’s Utilitarian theory is that it asks us to anticipate what will happen as the consequence of our actions. However, the future is unpredictable and unexpected things may make our decisions go from good to bad (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.12). An example of this in Howard’s situation is that he anticipates that the vaccines will generate more pleasures, however, what might be unexpected is that the residents may still end up with pain even though they are healthy. This
The opposing view follows that Howard should continue to distribute vaccinations without acting on the issues defined by the language barrier complication. Bentham’s Act Utilitarian approach underlines this action. In Bentham’s eyes, the consequence of pleasure has intrinsic value, and should be the only means that we should consider when deciding upon our actions (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). Bentham believed that to decide if an act is morally permissible (allowed), we must take into consideration the pleasure and pains of all those who can feel it (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). We do this through hedonic calculus. When considering an act, we must envision all the pleasures and pains that it will cause. Subsequently, we must add all pleasures on one side and all pains on the other (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.7). If the situation leads to more pleasures than pains, then the act is morally permissible. What qualifies this test is that Bentham beliefs were radically egalitarian (Collier & Haliburdon, 2015, p.7). Essentially, this means that no pleasures are more pleasurable than other pleasures and, similarly, no pains are more painful than other pains. All …show more content…
The reason is that there are several weaknesses within the Utilitarian theory that make the first decision faulty. The first weakness of the utilitarian approach is that Bentham does not take into consideration that some pleasures rate higher in pleasure than others. Similarly, he does not consider that some pains are more painful than other pains (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.12). In modern society, however, we know that pains are qualitative and subjective (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.9). For example, in Howard’s situation, the pain that generates from the residents distrust with the health team may have more value than the pleasure generated from the pets whose owners do not become ill. This, therefore, discredits the egalitarian aspect of his theory. Moreover, another weakness in Bentham’s Utilitarian theory is that it asks us to anticipate what will happen as the consequence of our actions. However, the future is unpredictable and unexpected things may make our decisions go from good to bad (Collier & Haliburden, 2015, p.12). An example of this in Howard’s situation is that he anticipates that the vaccines will generate more pleasures, however, what might be unexpected is that the residents may still end up with pain even though they are healthy. This