After I have checked all possible escape routes and have attempted to extricate the scoutmaster, it becomes clear that the only way to save the boys is to sacrifice the scoutmaster and remove him from the hole so the rest of the scouts can escape. What is the correct action for this case? Justify my decision using each of the following: – Duty-oriented reasoning – Consequence-oriented reasoning – Virtue-ethics reasoning Consider what might be the ultimate dilemma of ethics and include the answer to each of the following questions: – What happens when people apply differential standards (all valid) to health care decisions?
Explain with supporting examples. – How does an individual determine who is ultimately right when different decisions are reached? As a paramedic, my duty would be to render aid where aid is needed at any time in any situation. In the scenario, the question is asked of me as to who should I save and whose life would I choose to end to save the other. As a paramedic in a dire situation as this one the decision falls on me and my team to decide whose life is worth more.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
In this particular issue I would have to think fast and apply the fact that I have an obligation to save as many lives as possible at the same time as protecting the most vulnerable ones above anything and in this my duty is to save the lives of the children. I wouldn’t be morally right or fulfilling my duties as a person in the medical field if I didn’t save the children who are considered to be the most vulnerable people in our society next to the elderly. Sadly with these circumstances, the scout leader would have to be sacrificed.
Duty-oriented reasoning is an actions consequence isn’t as important as the actual moral law behind the action. Just to give an example: a person must be honest only because it is morally the right thing to do, even if the truth has a bad outcome in the end. One shouldn’t lie because it’s their duty to be honest and not tell an untruth even if it would save a life. The reasoning behind duty oriented reasoning is the intention, and is based on universal principles that guide actions (Fremgen, 2009).
Consequence-oriented reasoning, or consequentialism, uses a cost/benefit analysis to benefit as many people as possible (Fremgen, 2009; Rosenstand, 2003). This is the part that was mentioned above in regards to having a greater significance than the actions taken. Or simply put: the consequences signify that the end results are justified by the means. So in this situation, it would be the lives of the troop are in a way more important that one person which would be the scout master. Morally, it is imperative to always help as many as possible.
In this scenario, although its sad to have to sacrifice anyone, it would be neccessary on moral grounds to save the greatest number of individuals and let the least amount suffer. Virtue-ethics reasoning is based on what a virtuous person would do; it deals with the character of a person and the responsibilities derived from such a character (Rosenstand, 2003). In this reasoning, a person would act in a justly and virtuous manner and creating a decision where everyone is treated equally and no one would be more important than the other.
All 3 methods are going to ultimately end with the same conclusion only because it is the scout leader who is responsible for each of the lives of the troop members in which he lead into that situation. Now being that the scout leader has put his own life as well as a group of harmless children’s lives in danger only shows lack of responsibility and virtue by not getting the scouts out first before himself. If the leader had chosen to do so, all the children would have been outside of the cave and his life could have been saved as well.
In conclusion, with every difficult situation there’s no real absolute answer as to what is right or what is wrong. Each problem has a solution and the paramedics are the examiners of the situations first hand due to the fact that we are the first on the scene. When applying different standards to healthcare practice, different conclusions may be achieved. It is important to understand all parties’ view points, to clarify the ethical issues, and to compromise in resolving the dilemma (Fremgen, 2003).
On the other hand, paramedics aren’t trained to dismember or even sacrifice another human being in any situation. This would be theoretically not logical to ask of anyone, but someone has to make a difficult call in this scenario. Also, I would think that the scout leader would have to sign something giving his permission to do what needs to be done [in this case sacrificing himself] to prevent any lawsuits being brought against the paramedic and/or the person(s) who made the fatal decision to end this humans life.
