Ethical Approaches to Medical Decision-Making: Consequentialism, Categorical Reasoning, and Deontological Theory
Overview
This reflection paper examines three ethical frameworks applied to a medical dilemma involving organ transplantation. The student analyzes consequentialism, categorical moral reasoning, and deontological theory to determine the most appropriate ethical approach for a doctor deciding between saving one patient or five patients using that patient's organs.
What this reflection paper covers
- Consequentialism theory: greatest good for greatest number justifies sacrificing one patient to save five
- Categorical moral reasoning: individual rights and duties are absolute regardless of outcomes
- Deontological theory: moral decisions based on personal obligations and beliefs rather than consequences
Preview
Surname
Instructor
Course
Date
Journal 3
Consequentiality theory suggests that something is wrong or right, depending on the consequences after that. In most cases, people would consider lying to be wrong but in this case, when lying is helpful, then it is the right thing to do. Consequentialism theory applies in our case because the theory judges the resulting consequence according to the greatest good achieved for the most significant number. In our case, letting the emergency patient die to save his organs for the other five is the best approach in this case (Bench-Capon 6). Losing one patient for the sake of saving five other patients is the best ethical approach to take in this case. A greater good will be achieved by losing one patient, saving a higher number of five patents, unlike if the one patent would be saved and losing the other five dependents on his organs for survival.
Categorical moral reasoning places morality in the rights and duties despite the underlying consequences. The theory points out that there is a particular thing categorically wrong regardless of whether they lead to a good result. According to this theory, the notion of calculating consequences to account for one's action should be put aside. In this case, the doctor must attend to the sixth patient regardless of whether his death would save many patients (Fryer 79). The sixth patients, too, have a right to be alive, and the doctor's mandate and duty are to keep him alive.