Case study 1

1
Case study 1

• Heather Dane
• Mercedes Fuentes
• Krisanna Embree
• Kari Ekstrom
• Brittany Frisell

2
Do parents have a moral right to consent on
behalf of their children to medical interventions?

• This right derives from potential duties to
  obtain adequate medical care for their children
  and is exercised in childrens best interests.

3
YES

• Culture Relativism
• Parental Consent
• Fatalism
• William David Ross
• Immanuel Kant

4
Cultural Relativism

• Cultural Relativism is defined as the view that
  all beliefs, customs and ethics are relative to
  the individual within his own social context.
  Right and wrong are cultural-specific what is
  considered moral in one society may be considered
  immoral in another
• No one can say if someone else is right or
  wrong it is a matter of personal opinion , and
  no society can pass judgment on another society.
• Cultural Relativism is also defines as the
  philosophical belief that all views are equally
  valid

5
Paternalism

• Strong Paternalism Acting without consent or
  even overriding the persons wishes, wants, or
  action in order to benefit the patient. In
  general healthcare providers reject this type of
  paternalism.
• Healthcare professionals and patients dont
  always have the same values. For example, the
  doctors in this case study felt that life was
  precious no matter what but the parents loved
  their daughters equally and believed that each
  had an equal right to life.
• Professionals lack the competence to decide what
  is best for another and have no right to use
  strong paternalism.
• Although the doctors felt that surgery was the
  best option for Mary and Jodi, the parents have
  the right and obligation to decide whats
  best for their children.

6
Fatalism

• The Idle Argument Fatalism is in general the
  view which holds that all events in the history
  of the world, and, in particular, the actions and
  incidents which make up the story of each
  individual life, are determined by fate.
• If it is fated that you will recover from this
  illness, then, regardless of whether you consult
  a doctor or you do not consult a doctor you will
  recover. Bus also, if it is fated that you will
  not recover from this illness, then, regardless
  of whether you consult a doctor or you do not
  consult a doctor you will not recover. But either
  it is fated that you will recover from this
  illness or it is fated that you will not recover.
  Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.
• The parents wanted to leave the outcome in Gods
  hand, basing their decision off a fatalistic
  theory.

7
William David Ross

• W.D. Ross (1877-1971) was a Scottish philosopher.
  
• He is a deontological theorist.
• Elements of Ross Moral theory

8
WW.D Ross's Moral Theory        W We all
have relations that are morally significant, For
example child-parent E Each of these
relations is the foundation of what Ross calls a
"prima facie duty" l        There are 7
different duty's, Fidelity, Reparation,
Gratitude, Justice, Beneficence, Self
Improvement, and Non Maleficence. l        "A
prima facie duty is a duty that is biding other
things equal, that is unless it is overridden or
trumped by another duty or duties." l        We
also have actual duties, "these are ones we
should perform in the particular situation of
choice. Whatever one's actual duty is, one is
morally bound to perform it." l       
According to Ross, our duty is determined by
looking at the total situation, and this can
involve many different prima facie duties. (The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)  
9
WW.D. Ross Moral Theory continue Fidelity,
beneficence, and non-maleficence or non injury
have great importance in this case
study. l     Fidelity are "duties to keep one's
promises and contracts and to engage in
deception" The parents have a type of contract
with their religion. They also make promises
that they are expected to keep. l     
Non-maleficence or non injury is a "duty to not
harm others physically or psychologically to
avoid harming their health, security,
intelligence, character or happiness" l      Benef
icence is "the duty to do good to others to
foster their health, security, wisdom, moral
goodness, or happiness" The parents of Mary and
Jodie have a duty to protect them and ensure
their quality of life not quantity of life is
improved.
10
"Thus persons cannot be educated or mature
without occasional discomfort or the pain that
comes with admitting truths we might prefer to
deny, yet we gain from such sometimes unpleasant
experiences in our ability to cope with
difficulty, in moral goodness, and in
wisdom. -W.D. Ross
11
Immanuel Kant

• Kant is a deontological thinker.
• The formula of the End in Itself act so as to
  treat people always as ends in themselves, never
  as mere means. Doctors saw the children as means
  to and end (ones happiness resulted in ones
  death).
• We must treat people as having a value all their
  own rather than merely as useful tools or devices
  by means of which we can satisfy our own goals or
  purposes. Doctors felt their values were more
  important than those of the parents.

12
Immanuel Kant

• Actions are morally right in virtue of their
  motives which must derive more from duty than
  from inclination. Duty is the necessity to act
  out of reverence for the law. The doctors duty
  to overcome self interest. Doctors motive was to
  kill one and let one live.
• The doctors were not morally right in their
  motives.

13
Opposing Argument

• The judge ruled in favor of the medical team he
  considered seriously the feelings and rights of
  the parents, he finally overrode their decision
  that both twins, unless separated, would die and
  it not being in Marys interests to live.
• Obviously the medical team was only concerned
  with Mary life and not Jodies.
• The medical team looked at the situation in a
  utilitarian way, A sacrifice which does not
  increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of
  happiness, it considers as wasted.
• They looked at the situation seeing that if the
  twins were not separated they would both die and
  if they were separated at least one childs life
  would have a good chance of surviving.

14
Opposing Argument Continued

• The doctors saw that Jodie would be sacrificing
  her life for Mary, and they thought it would be
  worth losing a life for the life of another.
• The happiness which forms the utilitarian
  standard of what is right in conduct, is not the
  agents own happiness, but that of all
  concerned.
• This is something the medical team didnt take
  into consideration. They didnt consider the
  happiness of all that are concerned, especially
  both of the girls and not just Mary.

15
References

• http//www.hu.mtu.edu/tlockha/hu329ov8.htm
• http//www.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.ht
  m
• http//www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
• http//www.cultural-relativism.com/
• http//www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural-relativ
  ism.htm
• http//ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m
  645u/
• http//www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
• http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/