Please use the following model to walk through a discussion about case 38. You will be collectively assessing the situation and then using your assessment to come to agreement about the answers to the questions at the end of the case. This is the attendance-assignment for the week.
Case Resolution Model
(adapted from Morality and the Professional Life: Values
at Work by Cynthia A. Brincat and Victoria S. Wike)
Stage I. Presentation
1Present the problem
a. Identify the issue
b. Define the moral
situation
2Collect information
a. List morally relevant
facts
b. List non-moral
relevant facts (e.g., legal, economic, psychological, etc.)
Stage II. Analysis
3 List relevant values
a. Identify moral values
important to persons in the case (e.g., Integrity, Respect for Persons,
Compassion, Justice, Beneficence/Nonmaleficence, Responsibility)
b. Identify non-moral
values important to persons in the case (e.g., economic, intellectual, social,
spiritual, etc.)
c. Identify possible
value conflicts. (Is there a true ethical conflict, or a conflict between
ethical and other values?
4Explore options
a. How do different
theories interpret and apply the relevant values? (e.g. care, consequentialist,
duty, narrative, rights, virtue)
b. Which options are
favored by more than one theory?
5Assess
rightness/wrongness of various outcomes
a. Option 1
b. Option 2
c. Option 3
6Decide which option
solves the moral problem
Stage III. Review
7Defend the decision
a. Give reasons to
explain the decision.
b. Assess the strength
of the reasons (relevant, consider all affected persons, consider central moral
values).
8Reflect
a. What objections can be made to the decision?
b. How could this
problem have been avoided?
I tried to post my assessment but it said there were too many characters. But anyway...
ReplyDelete1) Dr. T should act in accordance with the wishes of the couple, because it is the couple's decision to make, and the physician's responsibility to help out the patients as much as he/she can. It is the duty of the physician to do so, and from a virtue of ethics standpoint, his job and duty require that he should be morally obligated to make the patient happy with their decisions.
2) I think that if embryo splitting was an option at all, then it should have happened at a time sooner when they had more embryos, in case they didn't work out. Otherwise, they wind up with identical children of different ages! I do think embryo splitting is a defensible adjunct, but at a certain time is it only acceptable. Unless they are wanting twins, or using each "identical" embryo as a backup in case one doesn't work, then I don't see it fit as a defensible adjunct.
3) If I'm correct, then somatic cell nuclear transfer will do the same thing: producing an identical organism (ultimately) but at a different time. If so, then neither one is more morally problematic than the other, unless the actual person who is cloned has their consent. If that be the case, then embryo splitting is still more of a moral problem, because the embryo in question doesn't have a say in what goes until the process is long complete.
Here is the link to my assessment on google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DSKVyWKEn9LRquLY2x1hlCQjIzRUJo8M6_pLNLbqZhk/edit
DeleteI liked Zach's idea of the Google Document, so here is mine as well! I guess we could still discuss it underneath the original blog post...
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7xHxqAF5qo51It9AoJWhv_skdDXijuWRx_6FB6qkhc/edit
I followed suit with Zach and Sam, so here is the link to my formal analysis of this case:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_RX4WLvkJK9ky0JDKqLlFqP5yJO3Mj0iY4Gay6JFno/edit?usp=sharing
By the way, I've made mine visible now. I had no idea you had to do that >.<
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cg2jH464oY3cK5oXJFDcJCp5RiJ9kIteUB3UaG6PUKA/edit
ReplyDelete