IntroToHumanitiesHW3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Indian River State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1020
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by EarlStraw4263
Assignment 3
Please read:
1.
Clifton Perry, “The Philosopher as Ethics Consultant in a Psychiatric Ward,” pp.
49-57.
2.
Kenneth Kipnis, “Ethics Consulting in a Multicultural Setting: Quality Care and the
Wounds of Diversity,” pp. 58-64.
3.
Muriel Friedman, “Prescribing Viagra: Ethical Issues in Urologic Practice,” pp. 64-
71. Also see the PowerPoint on Care Ethics that comes with the assignment.
Please answer the following questions. Put your answers under each question, and
please submit this whole document as a file that I can open with Microsoft Word.
____________________________
Question 1
: After reading the Perry article (1), explain what Perry was doing and
explain the problem with the manic patient. What happened?
Answer 1:
Clifton Perry participated in the Program on Human Values and Ethics clinical
medical ethics course at the University of Tennessee Medical School from 1981 to
1983. He participated in the teaching and working sequences and occasionally
oversaw Ethics Grand Rounds. The Department of Psychiatry's rounds had the aim
of examining the moral dilemmas that arise in a particular clinical environment. He
encountered a case involving a 33-year-old man who had been admitted to a nearby
emergency room due to an injured hand sustained while playing football as he was
going around. Numerous physical and laboratory examinations revealed that the
individual had no neurological conditions. But according to medical records, he had
previously been identified as manic and was being treated with lithium carbonate, a
psychoactive drug. The patient said that he no longer wanted to take the
prescription since being "straight" or reasonable is uninteresting, even though he
was entirely rational as a result of the lithium carbonate medication.
____________________________
Question 2
: The patient that Perry discusses decided that he didn’t want to take
the lithium anymore. The patient said that he enjoyed being manic. When the
patient said this, was he
competent
or
incompetent?
Explain why, according to
Perry, that’s important to know.
Answer 2:
The patient was competent when he decided to stop taking the lithium prescription.
The patient was under the influence of drugs when he commented, thus he was
speaking logically. He would be incompetent if he stopped taking the lithium
because he would relapse into a manic episode and start thinking erratically.
According to Perry, it's critical to understand if the patient is competent or
incompetent because it affects whether the medicine should be continued. Since
the patient is capable of making rational judgments and is thinking clearly, the
doctors cannot force him to take the medication against his will because he is in a
suitable mental condition to do so. Now, if the circumstances were different and the
patient was incompetent and acting erratically, the doctors may still administer
medication to him because they were attempting to assist and treat him to make
him better.
___________________________
Question 3
: Referring to Perry’s article, use the utilitarian approach to morality and
list as many
utilitarian reasons
(not Kantian reasons) you can think of to support
the view that the patient
should take
the lithium. Then list as many
utilitarian
reasons
as you can think of to support the view that the patient
should not
take
the lithium. (The utilitarian view looks at all the effects, the good and bad effects,
the action will have on everyone affected by each action.)
Please use complete
sentences, and number your reasons below
.
Answer 3:
Reasons he should:
1. Taking lithium serves to secure the well-being and protection of those who
surround him
2. The medication is beneficial and is geared to restore his ability to engage in self-
regulating behavior
3. Prevents him from hurting himself and endangering his life
Reasons he should not:
1. The patient is spared from having to deal with the lithium's possibly harmful side
effects
2. Taking the medication is against the patient’s desires therefore not taking it
would make them happier
3. Not taking the lithium would allow more product for someone else who is in need
to use it
__________________________
Question 4
: Read the part about the Jehovah Witness in Perry’s article. What was
the story with the Jehovah Witness? Explain what happened to him. Explain what his
request was. Finally explain what the Kantian reason was for respecting this request.
Answer 4:
The incident of the Jehovah's Witness involved a 43-year-old male who was
hospitalized for internal bleeding after a tree fell on him. He required a blood
transfusion to survive. He said, "I very much want to survive, but I do not want to be
denied the opportunity to have everlasting life," and as a Jehovah’s Witness, he
refused to receive a blood transfusion. The Kantian-based right to autonomy is the
justification for complying with the man's request.
_________________________
Question 5
: Perry compares the Jehovah Witness to the manic patient. They both
denied treatment. In your opinion, are they the same or different situations? Do
they both have the same intentions or motives? Or do they have different motives?
Explain your view.
Answer 5:
I believe that the Jehovah’s Witness and the manic patient represent two distinct
scenarios since the former denied medical assistance on the grounds of religious
views, while the latter did so because he claimed to be bored despite being capable
and competent. Although they both rejected medical care, their motivations were
different. One was driven by emotional or religious values, and the other by a desire
to appear incapable.
________________________
Question 6
: Perry argues that the two cases are different, and he says that there is
a Kantian reason for not allowing the manic to stop taking his medicine. Explain
Perry’s Kantian reason for not allowing the manic to stop taking his medicine.
Answer 6:
The manic should not be allowed to quit taking his medicine since, according to the
Kantian grounded right to autonomy, he should be permitted to do so because he is
in a competent mental condition. The manic is not universal since, in Kantian
terminology, he is using his capacities to eradicate them. Therefore, the manic
should respect himself as a capable, ruling logical person and continue his lithium
therapy because it is working for him. This circumstance is comparable to what Kant
remarked on the suicide case. In the case of suicide, Kant argued that it should
never be done since the motive for suicide creates a contradiction. In the suicide
case, the man's desire for a decent life was used as justification for ending his own
life, which is always immoral and never ethically acceptable. In the manic scenario,
the man utilized his sane judgment while being affected by the lithium prescription
to support his justification for stopping the drug. Since neither of these two
situations was motivated by or committed to having good intentions, neither can be
considered universal or ethically acceptable.
________________________
Question 7
: For the Perry article, would you force the manic patient to take the
lithium or not? Support your position using Kantian or utilitarian reasons.
Answer 7:
The manic patient would be coerced into taking lithium by me. He is in a competent
frame of mind when rejecting lithium, but it doesn't make his decision any more
valid. The fact that he wants to stop taking the lithium because he is bored while it
is helping him with his manic illness is not a good enough excuse in my opinion.
Given that the patient's motive leads to a contradiction, I support Kantian reason.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The man claimed his desire for a "less boring life" which is never morally acceptable
and is always morally wrong, as an excuse for not taking the medication.
_______________________
Question 8
: Reading the Kipnis article, explain the story of the Korean patient and
the problem that arose with him.
Answer 8:
An elderly Korean man was suffering from a condition that was difficult to diagnose,
and treat, and it was only getting worse. Fortunately, the doctors identified the
patient's underlying medical condition and provided him with a treatment plan that
would aid in his almost complete recovery. The patient denied treatment. Kipnis,
the nurses, and the doctors didn't understand the patient's refusal to get the
recommended care. A few minutes later, they learned that the Korean patient's
refusal to receive treatment was because all of the trained professionals were
Japanese. He requested the only non-Japanese doctor for him to accept treatment
as he had an issue with Japanese doctors because of World War II.
_____________________
Question 9
: What would you decide to do in the case of the Korean man that Kipnis
describes? Explain your view, including using Kantian and utilitarian ideas. Do you
think it can every be right to accommodate a patient’s prejudice against others
caring for them?
Answer 9:
In this situation, I would approve the change of physicians because if I tried to
persuade him differently, it would prevent the patient from receiving the care he
needs to survive. According to the Kantian theory, this choice is morally acceptable
because it applies to everyone. Everyone has the right to accept or reject medical
care as they see fit, according to Kant's philosophy. According to the utilitarian
perspective, this choice would guarantee the patient's pleasure and life because he
can obtain what he wanted. In similar cases I would not see it as just but, I would
also act in the same way since arguing with the patient and telling them they
are being racist would only prolong their medical problems and endanger
their health. However, I do not support racism toward others and do not believe it
to be morally acceptable.
___________________
Question 10
: What do you think about Friedman’s views on prescribing viagra?
What does she say that you agree with? Explain why you agree. Does she say
anything that you disagree with? Explain why you disagree.
Be sure to read
Cohen’s explanation of Care Ethics on pages 30-34.
Answer 10:
Regarding Friedman's opinions, I believe she was correct to provide the man with a
prescription for Viagra. I concur with her that the pill should be permitted to be
administered to enhance interpersonal interactions with a spouse and with oneself
and to eliminate emotional and physical harm. She also made the point that it
shouldn't be administered solely for sexual pleasure; I agree with her on this point.
She firmly feels that it ought to be permitted for people who are truly impotent and
in need. Given that it aids those in need and those who have impotence, Viagra
shouldn't be viewed with contempt by the general public.
________________