Medical Ethics: Utilitarianism, Kant's Theory, Moral Rig ✓ Solved

Medical Ethicsutilitarianismconcluding Kants Theorymoral Rights – He E

Explore the core themes of medical ethics, including utilitarianism, Kant’s moral philosophy, and moral rights. The discussion includes positive and negative rights, the principles of utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham and Mill, and the implications of these theories in medical decision-making. It also covers natural law theories, the doctrine of double effect, concepts of ordinary and extraordinary measures, and the influence of social contract theory. The paper examines contemporary ethical dilemmas such as the rights of non-human animals, case law involving medical consent, international health practices, and vaccination ethics.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Medical ethics constitute a complex landscape of moral principles and theories that guide healthcare professionals in making morally sound decisions. These principles are rooted in various philosophical traditions such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, natural law theory, and social contract theory. Each framework offers distinct perspectives on what constitutes morally acceptable action, especially when conflicts between individual rights and societal good arise.

Utilitarianism, famously championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, emphasizes maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. According to Bentham, the fundamental human impulses are driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and morality is judged by the utility principle—actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Bentham, 1789). Mill refined this by emphasizing qualitative differences in pleasures and advocating for individual liberty, provided it does not harm others (Mill, 1863). His harm principle specifically underpins the importance of individual freedom, asserting that society’s power to restrict freedoms should only be exercised to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1863). This concept remains central in contemporary bioethics, especially when balancing public health and personal autonomy, such as in vaccination policies (Gostin et al., 2014).

In practice, utilitarian approaches have informed policy decisions that seek equitable resource distribution, such as Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) initiative. This innovative measure considers social, psychological, and environmental factors, extending beyond traditional economic indicators like Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These efforts illustrate utilitarianism’s emphasis on collective well-being (Ura et al., 2012). However, critics argue that utilitarianism can sometimes justify morally questionable actions if they produce overall happiness—such as sacrificing individual rights for the greater good (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019).

Deontological ethics, notably Kantian ethics, offers a different approach founded on the inherent dignity and rights of individuals. Kant’s categorical imperative mandates that actions must be universally applicable and treat humanity as an end in itself, not merely as a means (Kant, 1785). This framework underscores the importance of moral rights—positive rights to education, healthcare, and shelter, and negative rights such as privacy and freedom from harm. Kant maintains that without respecting these rights, the moral law cannot be upheld, emphasizing that moral duties are unconditional and absolute (Wood, 2008).

Medical dilemmas frequently involve conflicts between these ethical frameworks. For instance, in the case of euthanasia or assisted dying, utilitarianism may support actions that relieve suffering if they result in overall happiness, while Kantian ethics might oppose such actions because they violate the duty to preserve life and treat individuals as ends (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Similar complexities emerge in cases involving parental consent and the rights of minors. The Jodie and Mary twins’ case in England demonstrates how legal frameworks intersect with moral considerations when parents’ wishes conflict with medical judgments (Ravitsky et al., 2006).

The doctrine of double effect further guides ethical decision-making by allowing actions that may produce harmful side effects if the primary intention is morally good. For example, administering high doses of pain relief to terminally ill patients may hasten death as a side effect, but if the intention is to alleviate suffering, it can be ethically permissible (Matters, 1994). This principle underpins decisions regarding withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and distinguishes between intended outcomes and merely foreseen consequences.

Natural law theories, as advanced by Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, emphasize alignment with human nature and the intrinsic order of the universe. Aquinas believed that natural inclinations—such as preserving life, reproduction, and knowledge—indicate moral good (Aquinas, 1274). Locke’s theory focuses on natural rights, particularly life, liberty, and property, which the state must protect to ensure social harmony (Locke, 1689). These perspectives influence contemporary debates on euthanasia, abortion, and civil rights, emphasizing moral duties derived from human nature itself (Friedman, 2012).

Social contract theory, notably articulated by Hobbes and Rousseau, contends that individuals consent to give up certain freedoms to establish a governing body that ensures mutual protection of rights. Modern bioethics reflects this through legal and moral rights, which are essential for societal stability. Legal rights, such as voting, are granted by law, whereas moral rights stem from human dignity and are intrinsic (Tuckness, 2002). The balance between these rights often emerges in decisions about resource allocation, vaccination mandates, and confidentiality in healthcare (Childress et al., 2002).

Kantian ethics further informs healthcare practice through the concept of duty-bound moral actions guided by the categorical imperative. Two formulations—universal law and treating humanity as an end—serve as moral touchstones. They demand that doctors respect patient autonomy, informed consent, and confidentiality as unconditional duties (Kant, 1785). For instance, the obligation to obtain informed consent respects the patient’s dignity and capacity for rational decision-making. Violations of these duties, even if beneficial from a utilitarian perspective, are deemed ethically unacceptable in Kantian terms.

Contemporary challenges in medical ethics often involve applying these philosophical frameworks to real-world situations. The extension of moral rights to non-human animals by Spain signifies a shift toward considering broader moral communities and highlighting species-specific rights (Valverde et al., 2011). Ethical dilemmas arising from organ transplantation, end-of-life care, and experimental research demand nuanced understanding of rights, duties, and societal interests. These issues underscore the importance of a pluralistic approach that integrates utilitarian, deontological, natural law, and social contract principles to arrive at morally justifiable decisions (Beauchamp, 2011).

In conclusion, medical ethics encompasses a rich tapestry of theories and principles that collectively guide practitioners in navigating complex moral landscapes. While utilitarianism emphasizes collective happiness and consequentialist reasoning, Kantian ethics underscores unconditional duties and respect for individual rights. Natural law and social contract theories add further depth by grounding morality in human nature and societal agreements. The integration of these perspectives enhances our capacity to address contemporary moral challenges involving compassion, justice, and human dignity.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Childress, J. F., et al. (2002). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(4), 528-546.
• Friedman, M. (2012). Human Rights and Natural Law. Cambridge University Press.
• Gostin, L. O., et al. (2014). Vaccination laws: Historical and legal perspectives. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 375-376.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Ravitsky, V., et al. (2006). Ethical analysis of twin separation: The case of Jodie and Mary. Bioethics Forum.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Ura, K., et al. (2012). Sustainable development and gross national happiness: A new paradigm. Journal of Bhutan Studies.
• Valverde, A., et al. (2011). The moral status of non-human animals: A review of the literature. Journal of Animal Ethics.
• Wood, A. W. (2008). Kantian ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.