Assess this case and the questions at the end of the case by paying particular attention to what a Virtue Ethicist and Ross would say about it. Respond to one of your classmate's posts.
He probably posted his true feelings, but then realized they were too powerful and raw for us to handle. In reality, we should be thanking him for not showing us up!
The virtue ethicist, we have established in previous discussion, is concerned with the nature of relationships and the responsibilities they create. In other words, we are obligated to be virtuous in our dealings with others. The relationship of the elderly man to his children and his doctor are delicate ones. The children and the physician do not wish to cause the man distress by putting him in an institution against his will, but to allow someone to continue to live on their own, despite the fact that they experience bouts of confusion and wander around in public would also pose a moral quandry. To act virtuously, the virtue ethicist would say it is not permissible to allow the man to wander freely since he may pose a significant threat to himself others if his condition worsens and he begins to do more than just wander "purposelessly." This would be using the people of his neighborhood as a means to the desired end of the man's hapiness in staying by himself. Furthermore this would violate the responsibility the children and physician have to protect the man himself because of their relationship to him. This is not permissible in virtue ethics. Ross takes a similar stance, but with a different justification. He argues that the children and the physician are pulled in 2 directions. They have a prima facie duty to fulfill their father's wishes in the golden years of his life. Simultaneously, they have a prima facie duty to protect their father's safety, as well as the potential safety of his neighborhood. The latter duty is more stringent as it is a duty of beneficence to make the safety conditions of the man and the safety of the public he may encounter better. Thus, Ross also believes the man should be moved into a home. In both cases, this is morally obligatory.
Hey Cody! I liked how you turned it around on the children and the physicians and said it would "violate the responsibility" they have to protect the elderly man. I think this shows a different and interesting perspective than just how it violates the wishes of the elderly man. It shows how they have a certain responsibility to follow and all of the effects they have to consider before they make their decision.
Hey Cody! I liked how you turned it around on the children and the physicians and said it would "violate the responsibility" they have to protect the elderly man. I think this shows a different and interesting perspective than just how it violates the wishes of the elderly man. It shows how they have a certain responsibility to follow and all of the effects they have to consider before they make their decision.
The general concept behind Virtue Ethics is that it focuses on what the individual should choose for his or her own personal character rather than the individual relying solely on the external laws and customs of our culture. Virtue ethics also takes into account the relationships between people, especially those formed between doctors and their patients, and the responsibilities that stem from those relationships. That being said, from the perspective of a virtue ethicist, the health care professionals and the patient’s children were justified in their conclusion that Ronald X lacked sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life. Because of his arteriosclerosis, there is a chance that the patient could harm himself, or possibly others, during his periods of confusion and his wandering trips around the city. Ross, on the other hand, would see a conflicting moral duty, or prima facie – duty to protect the patient’s safety, and also a duty to protect the patient’s wishes. In this case, where two prima facie duties compete for priority, Ross says that our duty to keep promises is usually more incumbent upon us than the duty to assist those who are in need. However, Ronald X’s request is trivial, and the need of the safety of others, including the patient as well as citizens who could be affected by the patient’s condition, is a matter of serious distress. With that said, Ross would have agreed that the family was justified in their decision.
Hey Becca! I really liked how you answered the questions and I feel if an outsider didn't have any clue about these ethical theories, your response would be a great introduction to them. While reading through your response one thing caught my attention and that was that you considered the request of the elderly man to be "trivial." I am not trying to be pedantic but I feel that the elderly man's request is far from trivial. I understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to get at by calling it "trivial," but i just feel that it is far from that. Looking at this from his point of view, when he is in his right mind, he is still completely in control of himself and that is a freedom that he has had for decades. Just imagine one day after living a fairly long life, one of your brothers tells you you are being put in a home. The man's life is being drastically changed and he has lost all say in the matter. To me, his request in not "trivial" because it is the request of a man about to lose a freedom he has had for decades. I feel that his request holds too much weight to be considered "trivial" by any means.
So if his request is not trivial, and he is indeed in the right state of mind at the time of this request, then how does this not sound immoral going against a man's wishes?
Trivial implies that the man's opinion on the matter is of little importance. Like I said, imagine you were about to lose a lot of your freedom and you ask those who are about to take it to not do it. Would that be a trivial request? Would you want those people to not even consider your request? You are losing freedom, a freedom you have had for decades. Don't you want some say in the matter? Remember that he was fine when he was in his right mind, same mental faculties he has always had. Think about how hard that would be?
I learned a very important lesson from this case/blog and that is to never read anyone's response before writing my own. I feel that Becca and Cody both answered this question extremely well and practically stated everything that I would say in response to the questions at hand...
As both Cody and Becca have stated, the focus of virtue ethics is on the obligation of the individual to make choices and perform actions that lead to increased character and virtues. Whether or not a choice is permissible lies in the the effect it has on the individual's character. In this case, a virtue ethicist would say that the action of the children and physician to restrict the elderly man's life would be justified. This is the case as neither the physician nor the children are doing this for malicious reasons but rather they just want to keep the man safe. As Cody mentions, it would be immoral for the children not to restrict the elderly man as that would put his life in potential danger as well as make the man a potential burden on others.
Once again, as both Becca and Cody have stated, Ross would more or less agree with the outlook of the virtue ethicist in the sense that this choice is permissible and morally acceptable. Ross focuses on the prima facie duties, or obligations, that are meant to assist in determining what choices and actions an individual should do. In this case, the physician/children have more than one prima facie duty: they want to respect the wishes of the elderly man but at the same time, they want to keep him safe. In accordance to Ross, one prima facie duty will always outweigh the others and in this case keeping the elderly man safe outweighs respecting his wishes. While the decision may be difficult, this is the option that will do the most good and as such, is the morally permissible choice.
You know... this took me awhile to think about and actually write up an extensive summary on how I felt about this case, and then Google just felt like erasing the entire thing... so I will briefly, and angrily point out what I remember and then be done. In terms of Ross, I believe that the decision made was credible and the obligation to keep Robert X safe outweighs his desire to be discharged. With the Virtue Ethicist point of view, however, I seem to be a little bit confused on the situation. I understand that in making this decision you have to concentrate on the relationship between Robert X and his children & physician, but also take into account the "responsibility" that each one feels to have for Robert X. What throws me off is that this man is not completely incompetent, he just has moments of extreme confusion. If he was in a "competent state" when he wanted to be discharged, wouldn't that be considered immoral for taking away his decision. But by definition of virtue ethics, I would also say that in this particular situation the best decision was to look out for his safety, when considering the relationships and the responsibility each one entailed.
From the view of a virtue ethicist the decision of the children and the doctor of Ronald X is justified. They are choosing to go against the will of Ronald X which in ways could be considered wrong but in this case they are taking responsibility and protecting him from himself and the dangers of the city. It would be wrong for them to allow Ronald X to live by himself and consequently be a danger to himself and others. I feel as though Ross also would have justified the decision of the children and physician. Ross feels that you have a responsibility to the keep the patient's wishes and also the patient's safety in mind. Considering the situation it is difficult to decide which one would take precedent but ultimately the safety of not only the patient but also those around him takes precedence and therefore is seen as justified.
From the view of a virtue ethicist the decision of the children and the doctor of Ronald X is justified. They are choosing to go against the will of Ronald X which in ways could be considered wrong but in this case they are taking responsibility and protecting him from himself and the dangers of the city. It would be wrong for them to allow Ronald X to live by himself and consequently be a danger to himself and others. I feel as though Ross also would have justified the decision of the children and physician. Ross feels that you have a responsibility to the keep the patient's wishes and also the patient's safety in mind. Considering the situation it is difficult to decide which one would take precedent but ultimately the safety of not only the patient but also those around him takes precedence and therefore is seen as justified.
All: a really meaningful discussion -- well done. I wonder, though, now that you've seen and/or read Being Mortal if you have changed your mind on this case? Is patient safety the most important aspect of the case? Is Craig right to challenge us on how it would feel to have your autonomy taken from you? Is there some other way to address the situation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.... I bet you said something naughty... and then deleted it.
DeleteHe probably posted his true feelings, but then realized they were too powerful and raw for us to handle. In reality, we should be thanking him for not showing us up!
DeleteThe virtue ethicist, we have established in previous discussion, is concerned with the nature of relationships and the responsibilities they create. In other words, we are obligated to be virtuous in our dealings with others. The relationship of the elderly man to his children and his doctor are delicate ones. The children and the physician do not wish to cause the man distress by putting him in an institution against his will, but to allow someone to continue to live on their own, despite the fact that they experience bouts of confusion and wander around in public would also pose a moral quandry. To act virtuously, the virtue ethicist would say it is not permissible to allow the man to wander freely since he may pose a significant threat to himself others if his condition worsens and he begins to do more than just wander "purposelessly." This would be using the people of his neighborhood as a means to the desired end of the man's hapiness in staying by himself. Furthermore this would violate the responsibility the children and physician have to protect the man himself because of their relationship to him. This is not permissible in virtue ethics. Ross takes a similar stance, but with a different justification. He argues that the children and the physician are pulled in 2 directions. They have a prima facie duty to fulfill their father's wishes in the golden years of his life. Simultaneously, they have a prima facie duty to protect their father's safety, as well as the potential safety of his neighborhood. The latter duty is more stringent as it is a duty of beneficence to make the safety conditions of the man and the safety of the public he may encounter better. Thus, Ross also believes the man should be moved into a home. In both cases, this is morally obligatory.
ReplyDeleteHey Cody! I liked how you turned it around on the children and the physicians and said it would "violate the responsibility" they have to protect the elderly man. I think this shows a different and interesting perspective than just how it violates the wishes of the elderly man. It shows how they have a certain responsibility to follow and all of the effects they have to consider before they make their decision.
DeleteHey Cody! I liked how you turned it around on the children and the physicians and said it would "violate the responsibility" they have to protect the elderly man. I think this shows a different and interesting perspective than just how it violates the wishes of the elderly man. It shows how they have a certain responsibility to follow and all of the effects they have to consider before they make their decision.
DeleteHey Vic! You should repeat yourself, I don't think he heard you!
DeleteThe general concept behind Virtue Ethics is that it focuses on what the individual should choose for his or her own personal character rather than the individual relying solely on the external laws and customs of our culture. Virtue ethics also takes into account the relationships between people, especially those formed between doctors and their patients, and the responsibilities that stem from those relationships. That being said, from the perspective of a virtue ethicist, the health care professionals and the patient’s children were justified in their conclusion that Ronald X lacked sufficient competence to determine the shape of his own life. Because of his arteriosclerosis, there is a chance that the patient could harm himself, or possibly others, during his periods of confusion and his wandering trips around the city.
ReplyDeleteRoss, on the other hand, would see a conflicting moral duty, or prima facie – duty to protect the patient’s safety, and also a duty to protect the patient’s wishes. In this case, where two prima facie duties compete for priority, Ross says that our duty to keep promises is usually more incumbent upon us than the duty to assist those who are in need. However, Ronald X’s request is trivial, and the need of the safety of others, including the patient as well as citizens who could be affected by the patient’s condition, is a matter of serious distress. With that said, Ross would have agreed that the family was justified in their decision.
Hey Becca! I really liked how you answered the questions and I feel if an outsider didn't have any clue about these ethical theories, your response would be a great introduction to them. While reading through your response one thing caught my attention and that was that you considered the request of the elderly man to be "trivial." I am not trying to be pedantic but I feel that the elderly man's request is far from trivial. I understand where you are coming from and what you are trying to get at by calling it "trivial," but i just feel that it is far from that. Looking at this from his point of view, when he is in his right mind, he is still completely in control of himself and that is a freedom that he has had for decades. Just imagine one day after living a fairly long life, one of your brothers tells you you are being put in a home. The man's life is being drastically changed and he has lost all say in the matter. To me, his request in not "trivial" because it is the request of a man about to lose a freedom he has had for decades. I feel that his request holds too much weight to be considered "trivial" by any means.
DeleteSo if his request is not trivial, and he is indeed in the right state of mind at the time of this request, then how does this not sound immoral going against a man's wishes?
DeleteTrivial implies that the man's opinion on the matter is of little importance. Like I said, imagine you were about to lose a lot of your freedom and you ask those who are about to take it to not do it. Would that be a trivial request? Would you want those people to not even consider your request? You are losing freedom, a freedom you have had for decades. Don't you want some say in the matter? Remember that he was fine when he was in his right mind, same mental faculties he has always had. Think about how hard that would be?
DeleteThat didn't answer the question of how it sounds immoral.
DeleteI see what you mean Craig. "Trivial" does imply insignificance, and I didn't mean to belittle the man! :)
DeleteI learned a very important lesson from this case/blog and that is to never read anyone's response before writing my own. I feel that Becca and Cody both answered this question extremely well and practically stated everything that I would say in response to the questions at hand...
ReplyDeleteAs both Cody and Becca have stated, the focus of virtue ethics is on the obligation of the individual to make choices and perform actions that lead to increased character and virtues. Whether or not a choice is permissible lies in the the effect it has on the individual's character. In this case, a virtue ethicist would say that the action of the children and physician to restrict the elderly man's life would be justified. This is the case as neither the physician nor the children are doing this for malicious reasons but rather they just want to keep the man safe. As Cody mentions, it would be immoral for the children not to restrict the elderly man as that would put his life in potential danger as well as make the man a potential burden on others.
Once again, as both Becca and Cody have stated, Ross would more or less agree with the outlook of the virtue ethicist in the sense that this choice is permissible and morally acceptable. Ross focuses on the prima facie duties, or obligations, that are meant to assist in determining what choices and actions an individual should do. In this case, the physician/children have more than one prima facie duty: they want to respect the wishes of the elderly man but at the same time, they want to keep him safe. In accordance to Ross, one prima facie duty will always outweigh the others and in this case keeping the elderly man safe outweighs respecting his wishes. While the decision may be difficult, this is the option that will do the most good and as such, is the morally permissible choice.
You know... this took me awhile to think about and actually write up an extensive summary on how I felt about this case, and then Google just felt like erasing the entire thing... so I will briefly, and angrily point out what I remember and then be done. In terms of Ross, I believe that the decision made was credible and the obligation to keep Robert X safe outweighs his desire to be discharged. With the Virtue Ethicist point of view, however, I seem to be a little bit confused on the situation. I understand that in making this decision you have to concentrate on the relationship between Robert X and his children & physician, but also take into account the "responsibility" that each one feels to have for Robert X. What throws me off is that this man is not completely incompetent, he just has moments of extreme confusion. If he was in a "competent state" when he wanted to be discharged, wouldn't that be considered immoral for taking away his decision. But by definition of virtue ethics, I would also say that in this particular situation the best decision was to look out for his safety, when considering the relationships and the responsibility each one entailed.
ReplyDeleteI could feel your anger reading this....
DeleteFrom the view of a virtue ethicist the decision of the children and the doctor of Ronald X is justified. They are choosing to go against the will of Ronald X which in ways could be considered wrong but in this case they are taking responsibility and protecting him from himself and the dangers of the city. It would be wrong for them to allow Ronald X to live by himself and consequently be a danger to himself and others. I feel as though Ross also would have justified the decision of the children and physician. Ross feels that you have a responsibility to the keep the patient's wishes and also the patient's safety in mind. Considering the situation it is difficult to decide which one would take precedent but ultimately the safety of not only the patient but also those around him takes precedence and therefore is seen as justified.
ReplyDeleteFrom the view of a virtue ethicist the decision of the children and the doctor of Ronald X is justified. They are choosing to go against the will of Ronald X which in ways could be considered wrong but in this case they are taking responsibility and protecting him from himself and the dangers of the city. It would be wrong for them to allow Ronald X to live by himself and consequently be a danger to himself and others. I feel as though Ross also would have justified the decision of the children and physician. Ross feels that you have a responsibility to the keep the patient's wishes and also the patient's safety in mind. Considering the situation it is difficult to decide which one would take precedent but ultimately the safety of not only the patient but also those around him takes precedence and therefore is seen as justified.
ReplyDeleteAll: a really meaningful discussion -- well done. I wonder, though, now that you've seen and/or read Being Mortal if you have changed your mind on this case? Is patient safety the most important aspect of the case? Is Craig right to challenge us on how it would feel to have your autonomy taken from you? Is there some other way to address the situation?
ReplyDelete