I am taking a bioethics class, and I am required to ask a question to people regarding the new Conscience Rule. Would you all say that the main ethical question is whether organizations and individuals should be required to participate in, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for services that directly contradict their deeply held religious and moral beliefs or would you say that the main issue is whether patient’s rights, health, and well being should be placed directly behind the rights of ideologically-driven physicians and anyone else directly or indirectly involved in their health care.
The next question is one that I am required to answer for paper I am writing and need a little help on. I understand how kantian ethics and virtue ethics would analyze this issue but, I do not really know what a Utalitarian perspective would be.
What is so hard about the utilitarian perspective?
If the utility for some outweighs the net loss of others, i.e. the net utility is positive, you force them to do it.
There is of course no way of knowing whether the net utility is positive and even if it was it would still be impossible to know that ex ante and if you open the door for that kind of reasoning in a democratic system it opens the door for a tyranny of the majority.
Thats just it I understand what it means “Greatest amount of good for the greatest number of beings” but how can one apply it to this question without being objective? Using a Kantian perpective your own belief does not really matter you may disagree but the perspective is set.
I have no idea what you just wrote.
First I think the “objective” in the second sentence should have meant “subjective” to which I would, “exactly, you canÃ??Ã?Â´t, but utilitarianism allows you to pretend that you are objective”-
What perspective is set by a Kantian perspective, besides a Kantian of course?
Do you have a Kantian perspective as a regulator or as a doctor?
PS- Sooner or later they will confront you with a form of utilitarianism where they measure utility in the form of money. That is highly seductive and completely wrong, see Rothbards critique of neo cardinalism.
Yes, you are right my mistake. Another mistake on my part, I had been reading an article on patient autonomy regarding Kants philosophy so, it would seem he sided with the patient but, in looking over this issue I completely ignored the autonomy and rights of the doctor. It seems like one can’t be objective on the issue.
The report is that of a medical ethicist writing to a pharmicist struggling with writting certain prescriptions. How can I as a medical ethicist write a report for the pharmacist, in which I objectively and dispassionately analyze the situation without forcing my beliefs onto her? The only thing I can think of is writing a report arguing both sides views but, that would lead us back to where we started.[/quote]
I reread your posts and I think what it comes down to is this:
Should a patient have the right to be treated no matter what or can a doctor refuse?
Or is it:
What decision does a doctor make and how would his stance be justifiable using different standards?