I. FACTS OF THE CASE Elmer Beard is an eighty-one-year-old patient at the Methodist Hospital who is suffering from a severe stroke, which left him in a coma and permanently paralyzed. Earlier, he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, angina, diabetes, congestive heart symptoms, gallstones, and cancer of the prostate. Shortly after receiving this news, Elmer fell into the stroke, and was admitted into the Methodist Hospital. Although Dr. James A. Duncan stated that Elmer Beard’s visit would be short, his visit to the hospital stretched from 36 hours to six weeks. Dr. Duncan refuses to let Elmer Beard off of the respirator, and explains that Mr. Beard has “plenty of good brain left”. Wilma Beard, his seventy-six-year-old wife, is
…show more content…
PROPOSED ANSWERS TO ETHICAL QUESTIONS Dr. Duncan’s refusal to let Elmer Beard off of the respirator would be immoral because it defiles three significant principles of Ethical Rationalism—the Principle of Assistance, the Principle of Fairness, and the Principle of Respect for the Life of Others. According to the Principle of Assistance, we all have a moral obligation to assist anyone in need of help. Dr. Duncan knew that Elmer Beard was in agonizing pain, but instead Dr. Duncan looked the other way. He refused to humanely end Elmer’s life, and let him be in excruciating pain for six weeks. Dr. James A. Duncan violated the Principle of Fairness, which states that we must be honest and give others their due, by lying to Wilma Beard. Dr. Duncan stated that Elmer’s visit to the hospital would be relatively short, but it lasted for around six weeks. Last but not least, Dr. Duncan broke the Principle of Respect for the Life of Others because he did not respect the integrity of Elmer Beard’s life. There was sufficient justification to take away Elmer’s life, but Dr. Duncan refused to let Elmer die with dignity. Also, I believe that we would be morally obligated to take Elmer Beard off of the respirator for similar …show more content…
Duncan has misinterpreted the ER’s Principle of Assistance. Although Dr. Duncan was trying to help Elmer stay alive, he did so at his the expense of his own health. If Dr. Duncan was trying to aid Elmer Beard, he would not have let him suffer six weeks of unbearable pain. Therefore, Dr. Duncan violated the Principle of Assistance by letting Beard stay in pain and agony.
OBJECTION (2): Dr. Duncan did not break the Principle of Fairness because he did not lie to Wilma Beard. Although Dr. Duncan stated that Elmer Beard’s visit to the hospital would be short, he did not state how long it would last. Thus, Dr. Duncan did not lie to Wilma Beard because he did not know how long it would last and did not promise anything.
RESPONSE TO (2): Although Dr. Duncan did not promise Wilma anything, he still violated the Principle of Fairness. Dr. Duncan personally told Wilma that her husband’s stay at the hospital would be short. Six weeks is not a short period of time. Dr. Duncan still lied to Wilma Beard because he told her that Elmer’s stay would be short. It doesn’t matter if he promised anything or not. He still lied to Wilma
PROPOSED ANSWERS TO ETHICAL QUESTIONS Dr. Duncan’s refusal to let Elmer Beard off of the respirator would be immoral because it defiles three significant principles of Ethical Rationalism—the Principle of Assistance, the Principle of Fairness, and the Principle of Respect for the Life of Others. According to the Principle of Assistance, we all have a moral obligation to assist anyone in need of help. Dr. Duncan knew that Elmer Beard was in agonizing pain, but instead Dr. Duncan looked the other way. He refused to humanely end Elmer’s life, and let him be in excruciating pain for six weeks. Dr. James A. Duncan violated the Principle of Fairness, which states that we must be honest and give others their due, by lying to Wilma Beard. Dr. Duncan stated that Elmer’s visit to the hospital would be relatively short, but it lasted for around six weeks. Last but not least, Dr. Duncan broke the Principle of Respect for the Life of Others because he did not respect the integrity of Elmer Beard’s life. There was sufficient justification to take away Elmer’s life, but Dr. Duncan refused to let Elmer die with dignity. Also, I believe that we would be morally obligated to take Elmer Beard off of the respirator for similar …show more content…
Duncan has misinterpreted the ER’s Principle of Assistance. Although Dr. Duncan was trying to help Elmer stay alive, he did so at his the expense of his own health. If Dr. Duncan was trying to aid Elmer Beard, he would not have let him suffer six weeks of unbearable pain. Therefore, Dr. Duncan violated the Principle of Assistance by letting Beard stay in pain and agony.
OBJECTION (2): Dr. Duncan did not break the Principle of Fairness because he did not lie to Wilma Beard. Although Dr. Duncan stated that Elmer Beard’s visit to the hospital would be short, he did not state how long it would last. Thus, Dr. Duncan did not lie to Wilma Beard because he did not know how long it would last and did not promise anything.
RESPONSE TO (2): Although Dr. Duncan did not promise Wilma anything, he still violated the Principle of Fairness. Dr. Duncan personally told Wilma that her husband’s stay at the hospital would be short. Six weeks is not a short period of time. Dr. Duncan still lied to Wilma Beard because he told her that Elmer’s stay would be short. It doesn’t matter if he promised anything or not. He still lied to Wilma