Category: Ethical Dilemma

Definition:

An ethical Dilemma is a situation where an organization faces a dilemma in responding to a situation. The company has many options but no process will be resolving the issue then this situation is called an ethical dilemma.

Summary:

Ethical dilemma is nothing but choosing an option over the other if there are multiple options are available to choose. Ethical issues are different from ethical dilemmas. Concerning the difference between ethical issues and ethical dilemmas, this is especially important as a first stage for the examination of organizational situations, regarding the way where ethical theory may add to ethical dilemmas.

Apparently, ethical theory has all the more a section to play where dilemmas start, involving difficult ethical decisions, than it does when one is confronted with a single issue. Be that as it may indeed, even in that last sort of circumstance the subject of whether one’s personal responsibility is an ethical issue. This may rise to dilemma, if simply after closer analysis.

Discussion:

This study on ethical dilemmas in the work environment draws from various orders. To understand the different impacts on ethical dilemmas inside organizations, three ethical decision models were picked as a reason for conversation of the discoveries Model of Ethical Decision-making, Person-Situation Integrationist Model, and Model of Ethical Intensity. A significant part of the examination on ethical focuses around the individual and how that individual can rationalize and think the entire factors of the variables required to settle on a choice when faced with an ethical dilemma. The primary theory of how an individual creates in his/her reasoning and good improvement underlie the resulting exploration on ethical decision models. Cognitive Ethical Development Theory fills in as a reason for conversation here. As indicated, people build up their own personal good insight dependent on a characteristic arrangement of maturational improvement. Every one of the six levels speaks to a move in social ethical improvement from the submission of level one to a progressively significant decision model dependent on a feeling of all-inclusive good equity at level six. Kohlberg’s model building up a phase-based model of ethical decision that advances from attention to judgment to goal lastly to conduct. Rest’s stages include awareness, where the individual can recognize ethical implications of a circumstance; judgment, where the individual can assess and reason through an issue; plan, where people have in their psyche a specific result for their activities; lastly conduct, which might have the suggestions the individual planned. The second piece of the theoretical structure originates from crafted by Trevino who proposed a model of ethical decision that included both individual and situational factors that impact ethical decision. She refers to ‘individual moderators, for example, ego strength, field reliance and locus of control in proposing a Person-Situation Integrationist Model. People with high inner self quality and an internal locus of control won’t depend intensely because of others in settling on their own choices.

Ethical dilemmas in the workplace are exceptionally typical, and they’re not for each situation easy to answer. The thoughts are clear, be that as it may, the test is in the execution. Regardless, when affiliations have unimaginable courses of action and procedures and stick to the laws and rules, there’s up ’til now a high peril of untrustworthy lead. Ethical Dilemmas is a ethic condition where a choice must be made between two correspondingly undesirable different alternatives. Dilemmas may arise out of various wellsprings of direct or disposition, as, it may develop out of the failure of individual character, the battle of individual characteristics and progressive destinations, legitimate targets versus social characteristics, etc. A business predicament exists when a various leveled pioneer faces a choice between in any event two choices that will impacts influence (I) the affiliation’s profit and earnestness; and (ii) its accomplices. ‘In conditions of this sort, one must carry on of sensibility to choose an unrivaled decision (Chris Ceplenskim, 2013).

The vast majority and associations don’t leave to make a flawed thing or to participate in monstrous blackmail. Constantly, these conditions start in little ways, with little advances that seem, by all accounts, to be insignificant. It is furthermore huge for people to appreciate that most ethics shames ordinarily incorporate a couple of individuals who are associated with the dynamic methodology at each stage. Therefore, obligation gets diffused among these individuals, making it difficult to credit deficiency to or power duty on a particular person. Although people may feel abnormal with what’s happening as they drop the ‘tricky slope,’ they convince themselves that ‘to the extent that it is legitimate, it is ethic’ or that they are doing what is foreseen from them. Legitimization — the ability to legitimize our direct — is one of our most noticeable great failings. Direct that would be seen as unscrupulous by an unapproachable gets sufficient to those included because ‘that is how it has reliably been done’ or ‘it doesn’t hurt anyone’ or ‘that is how they do it at Firm X.’

One of the most extremely horrible ethic difficulties an association faces is understanding your thing harms people. Maybe the best instance of this is the Tobacco business. There is solid verification that they considered underhandedness smoking may cause a person, from threat to various ailments, yet they continued advancing things strongly. They were brazening enough to ensure that smoking made no harm to pregnant women, buy up analysts to battle for them, even make strong vestibule social affairs to guarantee their favorable position.

Also, they have endeavored to fight against addictiveness of their thing, while at the same time using powerful campaigns to instill smoking to our awareness, concentrating on young and poor, two most frail sections to their savage fights (O’Reilly, 2012).

This was a choice between people’s life and advantage, and the tobacco business picked benefits. Regardless, this was a test in an increasingly broad range, from heads to laborers. Besides, for each savage power who just idea about his pockets or his votes, another put his employment in line to fight against the tobacco business. For every agent who neglectfully working for these associations, other intensely sources, revealing the trickery of these despicable campaigns.

A couple of frameworks have been made as a guide for settling ethic situations. One of them is the Potter box model for ethic dynamic, this model was made by Jay dim (2003) for thought in making ethic decisions inside the clinical calling, even that this model is created for various controls it will in general be used in various educates, for instance, business, media, social work, research, open assistance, etc (Debi Garrity, 2017).

References

1. Chris Ceplenskim, 2013. Ethical Dilemmas in the Workplace: Why Do Some Organizations Stumble?
2. Debi Garrity, 2017. Reduce Ethical Dilemmas in Your Organization
3. O’Reilly, 2012. Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, Second Edition

This paper will be exploring the provided scenario Sally’s case based on the Principle-Based Decision-Making Models introduced by Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association (CCPA) Code of Ethics (2007) consists of six steps which will be go through in details in this case study.

The case description

Client Sally, who deemed to be ‘mature minor’ during her first visit with me, a new therapist. Sally disclosed that the considerable domestic violence within her family that her father usually carries out violent behavior to her 14-year-old brother and caused him physically bruised. Sally shared that her father plans to move out recently; she also did not want to bring any outside agencies as she wanted to avoid extra violence from her father. In the meantime, the limits of confidentiality were not discussed with Sally during the first visit (Yorkville University, 2020).

Step one: identify the key ethical issues in this situation

According to Martin, Shephard & Lehr (2015), confidentiality should be always kept during counselling relationship except:1) when disclosure is required to prevent clear and imminent danger to the client or others; 2) when legal requirements demand that confidential material be revealed; 3)when a child is in need of protection. According to Sally’s case, a potential child abuse was reported, however Sally was not willing to involve any third-party agencies to help in this situation. Due to the crisis situation in the first session, the therapist did not have chance to talk to Sally about the limits of confidentiality. However, according to CCPA’s Code of Ethics, Sally’s 14-year-old brother is in considerable dangers which meet one of the exceptions of confidentiality listed in the Codes. Thus, key ethical issue in this situation is “whether I should report the potential child abuse from Sally’s father without inform Sally the limits of confidentiality in our counselling relationship”.

Step two: research ethical articles from CCPA Code of Ethics are relevant to this situation?

CCPA Code of Ethics (2017) stated that counsellors primary responsibility including promote welfare of the client, while keep every information of client confidential, except when there shows potential danger to others or a child is in need of protection (p.7). As the limits of confidentiality was not discussed with Sally, counsellor should discuss with Sally about the limits of confidentiality before any action being made.

Step three: ethical principles are of major important in this situation

According to CCPA (2007), counsellor’s primary responsibility incorporates six ethical principles: beneficence, fidelity, autonomy, nonmaleficence, justice and societal interest. In Sally’s case, beneficence, nonmaleficence and social interest can be applied. Beneficence means promoting client’s best interest in counselling relationships; by applying beneficence to Sally’s case, reporting the existing child abuse in her household in order to prevent future violence happen again as the violence is also her initial issue that brought her to counselling. Nonmaleficence can be explained as the obligation not to harm others; the action of reporting suspect child abuse is a form of protecting Sally from potential domestic violence from her father. Social interest embodies us as counsellors should be respecting the needs of all persons in the society;

Step four: risks and benefits of acting on the identified most important principles

Reporting this issue may violating client’s autonomy, which is violating Sally’s own will that she does not want to have any outside agencies involved that may escalate the violence. However according to Ontario’s Child, Youth and Family Act (2017), every person has the ‘duty to report’ to protect the most valuable members of our community. In the province of Ontario, it is counsellor’s duty to call Children’s Aid when acknowledged a child is in need of help which is also an action applying to societal interest required by CCPA as each counselor also has responsibility to the society. CCPA (2017) also outlined it is counselor’s duty to warn the person in danger to avoid foreseeable dangers (p.7). On the other hand, reporting the domestic violence may cause Sally lost her trust in our therapeutic relationship as we did not discuss the limits of confidentiality during the first session.

Step five: what do my feelings and intuitions tell me to do in this situation?

I have conflict in between reporting this issue and keep it a secret. Based on the Virtue-based ethical decision-making introduced by CCPA (2017), I asked myself how can my values best show caring for the client in this situation? How will my decision affect Sally in this ethical dilemma? What decision would be best defined who I am as a person? By reporting this issue, I can show my great empathy towards Sally and her brother as Sally may also be potential victim of domestic violence in this household. However, reporting this may destroy our trust built in the first session and Sally may wanted to end this counselling relationship as I did not keep her privacy confidential. Moreover, my intuition as a person in the society tell me I should report this issue as everyone as the duty to report when acknowledge a child is in need of help. If I did not report and keep it a secret, Sally and her brother may continue being victims of domestic violence.

Step six: what is the most helpful plan of action in this situation

Based on the previous steps within the decision-making model established in Sally’s situation, I decided to report the key ethical issue founded in step one. In addition to it, based on CCPA’s Standards of Practice (2015), I decided to also consult with another knowledgeable professional before making any action as I am a new therapist. In next session with Sally, I will tell her that I have to break confidentiality as her brother is in need of help and it is also my duty to report any child in abuse not only as a counsellor but also a member of the society. From Sally’s best interest, reporting this issue will avoid Sally to become a future victim in the household and also help her brother from the existing violence. I will inform Sally that I have already consult with another experienced professional without telling her personal information, to help me made this best ethical and moral decision. I would also apologize to Sally that we did not go over the limits of confidentiality in the previous session as she was in crisis. During next session, I will explain with Sally about the informed consent as well as the limits of confidentiality to avoid similar ethical dilemma happen again. Sally has the right to participate in the following counselling plans or to refuse any recommended services as its client’s rights outlined in CCPA’s Code of Ethics (2015).

References

1. Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. (2007). Code of ethics. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. Retrieved from http://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CodeofEthics_en.pdf
2. Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. (2015). Standards of practice (5th ed.). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. Retrieved from http://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/StandardsOfPractice_en_June2015.pdf
3. Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (2017). Child, Youth and Family Services Act, ON: Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. Duty to report. Retrieved from http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
4. Martin, L., Shepard, B., & Lehr, R. (Eds.). (2015). Canadian counselling and psychotherapy experience: Ethics-based issues and cases. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association.
5. Yorkville University. (n.d.) Counselling scenario 1. Retrieved from courses.yorkvilleu.ca

The role that healthcare providers play in promoting the health and well being of citizens cannot be overlooked. They work earnestly to provide the best care services that meet the specific needs of their patients. Thus, they have to assess every case thoroughly to determine the best course of action expected to yield the best results. The four main principles of ethics in healthcare – non-maleficence, justice, beneficence, and autonomy serve as the guidelines that help professionals to make best and ethical decisions (Page, 2012). However, as Murray (2010) advises, some medical situations may still lead to ethical dilemmas, making it difficult for caregivers to determine the most appropriate step to take. This case study involves the application of the principles of ethics to solve a significant ethical problem in Hopewell Hospital.

Overview of the Case

E.L. Straight has been working as the director of clinical services at Hopewell Hospital for the past two years. His tenure has seen the launch of several programs to improve the overall quality of healthcare services in the facility. These efforts have been quite successful, leading to a great improvement in patient satisfaction rates and overall healthcare outcomes. Dr. Cutrite is a general surgeon in the medical facility. An old-timer, he is known for his distinguished services. However, his efficiency has been deteriorating over the years due to a decline in both physical and mental capabilities. Aware of Dr. Cutrite’s declining clinical prowess, Straight has initiated a process to reduce his privileges to prevent potential problems that might arise due to his decreasing efficiency. Meanwhile, Dr. Cutrite continued to perform all his duties as before, including surgical procedures.

Matters took a sudden turn for the worse one morning, when the operating room supervisor informed Straight about the possibility that they could have left a needle protector in a patient’s (Mrs. Jameson) belly during a recent surgery. The supervisor thought that the needle protector might have been difficult to see if it was in a wound because they are red-pink in color. Although he was not absolutely sure of the connection of the two incidents, he said a discrepancy had been noted in terms of the needle protector when comparing the records of the surgery pack after a week. Straight suggested that they should take the patient back into surgery immediately so that they could check if the protector had really been left inside and remove it if so. They could tell her that they merely intended to check her deep sutures and incision and in this way, she would never know what they were looking for. However, this option seemed impossible because Mrs. Jameson had been discharged a few days ago.

Furthermore, the supervisor said Dr. Cutrite had warned them against informing the patient, saying that the needle cover could not possibly hurt her apart from causing her a little discomfort. When Straight called the chief of surgery for clarification, he said while it would cause occasional discomfort and not lead to life-threatening effects, nothing could be said for sure. The dilemma that Straight faces is to choose between two equally terrible options: calling back Mrs. Jameson and performing the surgery to check or ignoring the issue as suggested by Cutrite. The first option would not only be damaging to Dr. Cutrite’s career in Hopewell but the reputation of Hopewell as well, while opening up a possible lawsuit by the patient and her family. The second option would leave Straight terribly burdened about not doing the right thing as well as risk something happening to the patient as a result of the oversight.

Analysis of the Ethical Issues

The main factor that contributes to Straight’s ethical dilemma is the lack of accountability within the medical team. The persons in charge of counting the surgical pack did not notice the discrepancy in time because that would have resolved the issue before the patient was discharged. It shows laxity on the part of the supervisor. Moreover, it also shows negligence on the part of the medical team because they clearly did not check all the boxes before finalizing the surgery with the patient. The third issue was non-acknowledgment of the mistake as well as any responsibility for the action by Dr. Cutrite. The problem would not have been caused if all of them had been doing their tasks well and taken responsibility for the oversight, which would have been the ethical thing to do.

Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model

The above mentioned ethical problem can be analyzed using the three components of the ethical decision-making model, that is, moral awareness, judgment, and ethical behavior. Moral awareness is the ability to recognize an ethical problem (Trevino & Nelson, 2007). Straight exhibits this moral awareness by the fact that he recognizes the ethical problem in which he feels compelled to take action. Judgment involves deciding the right and wrong action in a certain situation (Trevino & Nelson, 2007). His judgment is reflected when he suggests that the patient should be taken back to surgery if the needle cover had indeed been left behind. If Straight decides to act ethically, he would undertake to resolve the issue, influenced by his judgment and the four principles of healthcare ethics.

The Effectiveness of the Communication Approaches

Effective communication between professionals is of great significance in healthcare settings because it promotes efficiency and leads to better health outcomes (Arnold & Boggs, 2019). In the case study, Straight demonstrates excellent communication skills. For example, he is an active listener throughout the conversation. He listened to the supervisor’s message carefully and quickly grasped the situation. In this way, he was able to respond appropriately to resolve the problem professionally. Another important aspect of the communication approach in the case is empathy. Straight was shocked by the news that a needle protector may have been left in a patient’s belly during surgery and was deeply concerned about the problems it might cause her. Thus, he immediately began thinking of an appropriate way to solve the problem.

The communication approaches that should be used more include active listening, proper tone, and politeness while those that should be avoided include inappropriate tone and improper language. The consequence of using effective approaches during communication is that it enables the involved parties to communicate effectively and understand each other (Fagerlin, Zikmund-Fisher, & Ubel, 2011). Non-effective communication approaches can lead to conflicts, making it difficult to solve issues or work collaboratively due to misunderstandings.

The Effectiveness of the Approach Used

Straight was reluctant to take any action to avoid getting into trouble with Dr. Cutrite, who is very influential in the political domain. The effectiveness of this approach is that it prevented conflict between him and Dr. Cutrite, which would cause tension and negativity in the workplace. Also, the process he had initiated to reduce the doctor’s privileges was still underway. The consequence of using a non-confrontational approach is that it does not hinder workflow and work environment in the hospital and maintains peace. The key lesson that healthcare professionals can learn from this case is the importance of practicing effective communication during their interactions with other professionals.

Application of Ethical Principles to a Possible Solution

The proposed solution would be to inform the patient about the issue and face the possible consequences. Ideally, the patient should be taken back to surgery to verify the existence of the needle protector and its removal. Such an action would prevent discomfort to the patient as well as potential adverse health consequences. This solution is based on the four ethical principles of ethical decision-making in healthcare: non-maleficence, justice, beneficence, and autonomy. Non-maleficence means not harming the patient, justice implies treating patients fairly, beneficence refers to taking actions that benefit the patient, and autonomy means respecting the patient’s values (Page, 2012). Arguably, the proposed solution to the ethical problem would constitute fair treatment (justice) and also not harm the patient (non-maleficence). The action only intends to promote the patient’s health (beneficence) while still respecting her values (autonomy). The only problem would be a possible conflict between Straight and Dr. Cutrite, which could be resolved through effective communication.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals can apply the four principles of ethics in healthcare to resolve ethical problems. In the case study, Straight has to choose between taking the patient back to surgery, ignoring the issue and live with guilt. However, the application of the four principles of ethics in healthcare in developing a solution to the problem resolves the issue. The suggested solution to the ethical dilemma upholds all four principles.

References

1. Arnold, E. C., & Boggs, K. U. (2019). Interpersonal relationships e-book: Professional communication skills for nurses. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences.
2. Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2011). Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(19), 1436–1443. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr318.
3. Murray, J. S. (2010). Moral courage in healthcare: Acting ethically even in the presence of risk. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(3). doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man02
4. Page, K. (2012). The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision
5. making? BMC Medical Ethics, 13, #10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-10
6. Trevino, L. K., Nelson, K. A. (2007). Business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ethics

According to Rendtorff (2016), ethics plays a significant role in economic debates. While the field of economics tends to focus on welfare outcomes, ethical consideration is of great importance as they also influence the success of a business. The economic paradigm is facing a crisis of legitimacy with the many dimensions of unethical issues. The global financial crisis and the collapse of Enron, among other cases, are believed to have occurred from the immorality of the economic world. The assumption that in economics, individuals only act in their economic self-interest and will conduct unethical behaviours if they are going to gain financial benefits is partially correct. We cannot conclude that all economist behaves unethically, but we do have examples such as the collapse of corporations like Enron that have resulted from unethical economist behaviors. Other dishonest instances in economics are regarding paying taxes. While there is tax evasion, which is immoral and illegal, there is also tax avoidance, which is unlawful and unethical (Braam, 2019). The act of avoiding taxes forcefully through creative arrangements that are not approved by the state is wrong. Scandals such as the Panama Papers in 2016 and Swiss / HSBC leaks in 2015 are examples of how large corporations have ease of tax avoidance through global financial systems (Olivier et al., 2019). Corporations are conducting tax games by transferring incomes between jurisdictions to take advantage of weak tax laws. The use of tax avoidance can lead to little or no corporate tax being paid. Failure to pay taxes as required by law leads to a decrease in government revenue, which negatively affects the citizens of a country (Crawford & Crawford, 2019). Moreover, it is unfair for corporations to use resources of one country and transfer the profits to another, hence leaving the native land in a disadvantaged position. In general, many people in business tend to act unethically.

Learning to act ethically

We can teach ethics in schools and colleges. Dramatic changes occur in adults between the age of 20 and 30. In this stage, people develop problem-solving strategies, including those of dealing with ethical problems. The changes are associated with how one discerns the society and its role in the community. The scope of these changes is associated with the years spent in formal education (Parker et al., 2016), and cautious educational efforts to affect the awareness of moral glitches and to inspire how people reason is effective (Parker et al., 2016). Mizzoni (2018) argued that an individual’s conduct is affected by their moral perception and rulings and their capability to deal with ethical problems is not formed all at once. There are three phases of growth in the capacity to think morally. First is preconventional, where children, ascertain what is right or wrong based on what they are taught by their parents or guardians. The next phase is conventional, in this phase teenagers adopt moral norms from those around them. The last stage is post-conventional, in which people past adolescent develop moral values that differentiate right and wrong from a collective point of view. These moral values are those that appeal to any rational individual since they take into account the interest of everyone affected by their decisions. Mizzoni (2018) argued that many factors, such as education could inspire an individual’s growth in these phases of development. Mizzoni (2018) found that when individuals took courses in ethics, they were forced to perceive problems from a universal viewpoint. Therefore, ethics can be taught in colleges and schools, as they have been found to have a positive impact.

Ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma is a state whereby one has to make a choice between two, deeds that have conflicting consequences. Based on the principles of utilitarianism ethics, when faced with an ethical dilemma, one should analyze the implications and the outcome of the act to determine if it will create happiness. One common ethical dilemma in the accounting and auditing field is receiving a gift from their clients. For instance, if an auditor receiving an expensive watch as a gift from a client, auditing might seem harmless. On the surface, it portrays a reward for an excellent working relationship between the auditor and the client. However, the gift could imply that the client is bribing the auditor from disclosing some information regarding the company. Using utilitarianism ethical philosophies, the auditor should analyze the consequences of their actions and determine whether they will bring happiness to many people. Accepting the gift will make the auditor and the client happy. However, if the auditor agrees with the present, they will be unduly influenced by the client to hide some information regarding the company and its management to the users of financial statements. Giving an incorrect audit will help the client and management to conceal illegal transactions or hide the right and fair value of the company’s economic performance. Failure to disclose such matters will give users of financial statements misleading information. When the users of these statements make decisions based on incorrect financial statements, they are likely to lose their investments. Suppliers may issue credit to corporations that are not creditworthy and lose their funds. Therefore, based on authoritarianism, the decision is not to accept the gift and conduct the audit using due diligence as required by the law. The auditor should also disclose all material information regarding the audit and indicate whether the audited statements present an accurate and fair view of the corporation’s financial position and performance.

Conclusion

Ethics is an integral part of every society as it creates peace and harmony. In the auditing and accounting profession, ethics help in acquiring investor and other stakeholders’ confidence, and it motivates investors to invest in the stock market, hence increasing the availability of funds for corporations. Utilitarianism principles of ethics help auditors to determine what is right and wrong, and thus enable them to make the right decisions when faced by an ethical dilemma. In economics, ethics are also important as it leads to business success. Ethics should continue being taught at all levels to create a more moral society.

The healthcare profession is a fluid industry. Advances and the expanse of knowledge are continuously changing interventions and treatments. The medical advances created by research and technological growth have increased the lifespan of individuals. These advances have also created new ways of prolonging life even when the most traumatic events occur to the body. In the healthcare industry, ethical dilemmas arise daily. When do we stop medically intervening to prolong life and let nature take its course? This challenges medical professionals morally and ethically which can interfere with their personal beliefs potentially having a negative impacting patient-centered care. When the decision to end life sustaining care is made, what is the ethical course of action that will create the least amount of negative impact for the patient and the family? The role of a nurse is not just medication administration and assessing the patient. A nurse is an advocate, caregiver, communicator, and team member. These roles are essential in ethically questioning situations while utilizing their knowledge of ethical principles and understanding the wishes of the patient and family. In this paper, I will be using a difficult personal experience to demonstrate end of life care and how it can impact nursing staff while challenging their ethics, morals, and personal beliefs.

An ethical dilemma is, “a situation in which an individual is compelled to choose between two actions that will affect the welfare of a sentient being and both actions are reasonably justified as being good, neither action is readily justified as being good, or the goodness of the actions in uncertain (Butts & Rich, 2020, p. 46).” In these situations, a decision must be made even though there is no obvious choice. This is where the dilemma occurs, and one must rely on their morals and understanding of other individuals’ thoughts and feelings to make the best decision. This is an individualized care, where no two situations are similar, thus no plan of care is the same.

During the last semester of nursing school, a Nursing Student (NS) was assigned to do their leadership in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). It was an average day. The NS arrived early and prepared themselves for another 12-hour shift and located their Preceptor. When receiving report, the nurse handing off said the patient was a DNR/DNI and the next sentence she was telling the NS and the Preceptor that the patient was intubated and what size of the intubation tube. Not understanding why this intervention occurred against the patient’s wishes, the NS began reading the notes and found that the patient’s son was his medical power of attorney (MPOA). When the patient’s health status was declining and the patient was deemed unable to make healthcare decisions, his MPOA decided that more extreme measures should be taken; therefor the patient was intubated. Soon after the shift started the patient’s MPOA came to visit and before even entering the room, pulled the Preceptor and NS aside to verify that we understood not to tell anyone (including other family members) any information. The MPOA expressed that they had “different” views about this situation. The MPOA elaborated that since the age of 18 (now 40’s), they and the patient had discussed end of life care. The patient had made it clear that they did not want an endotracheal tube (ET) and for no extreme interventions to be taken in a situation like this. It was clear that this was difficult for the MPOA and that they were fighting a strong internal battle between their desires to keep the patient alive and the patient’s wishes. The Preceptor and NS listened to the MPOA and answered questions. The MPOA also made it clear that they knew what the patient would want and was planning to extubate the next day. In this situation, the patient’s health was declining even with the extraordinary measures. Later in the shift, primary team evaluated the patient’s extubation criteria to determine whether the patient would be able to maintain oxygenation and ventilation without mechanical support. The patient did not meet the criteria and the MPOA was now faced with the decision to withdraw care or to provide care the patient had expressed he did not want.

This ethically challenging situation began to take an emotional toll on the NS when they were able to spend time with the patient. They were restrained to protect the patient from pulling their ET out and injuring themself. The patient was alert and could answer yes or no questions. This patient kept trying to move their arm towards their mouth making hand gestures indicating to the NS that they wanted the ET removed. The patient would mouth the word “out” and tears began welling up in his eyes. The reached out for the NS’s hand and grabbed it and held the NS’s hand for a long time. The NS asked him if he liked football, the mountaineers were playing a home game, so they turned the TV on, and the NS stood there holding the patient’s hand and watched football. Later during the shift, the NS asked if they wanted to get cleaned up and told the patient that family was planning to visit. He agreed. This patient was alone for most of the shift and in a position that he never wanted to be in. Part of being a nurse is to improve the patient’s quality of life by being a caregiver. The NS stayed with him when he was alone, turned on the game because a family member had stated he was a huge Mountaineer fan, comforted him, and even had him smiling. The plan for this patient was not for him to get better and return to his loved ones, it was to remove all extraordinary measures and from what the test indicated he would pass away shortly after taking him off life support.

This interaction demonstrates how the ethical and moral values can be questioned. There are multiple ethical dilemmas presented in this situation. There are two ethical dilemmas that I want to discuss. The first is intubating a patient that expressed that was a DNI. A patient’s advance directive states the medical care that the patient wishes to be followed. Once a patient is deemed unable to make decisions, the MPOA has the power to make all decisions and change the plan of care. A living will is a legal document that outlines “what medical care is to be provided in specific circumstances” (Butts & Rich, 2018, p.216). Having a living will ensures that a person’s wishes are honored. Having documents like this protects the patient and care providers. Family members are emotionally involved and cannot always make rational decisions. Sometimes family members are not ready to let go and make decisions based on their personal feelings and not what the patient wants or what is in the patient’s best interest. This is where patient advocacy is important. Making sure that patient autonomy is upheld makes the nurse accountable to the patient and strengthens rapport. The second ethical dilemma is extubating a patient that cannot sustain life without a ventilator. The MPOA acknowledged the patient’s right to die with passive euthanasia. This ethical dilemma challenges one’s beliefs, by withdrawing care to a patient that cannot survive without it.

According to Schroeder and Lorenz, nursing “represent the largest group of health-care professionals in the United States of America” (Schroeder & Lorenz, 2018). Personal experience has shown that nurses interact with patients more than any other healthcare professional and this puts nurses in the forefront of patient centered and holistic care. Studies have indicated that family members of end of life care patients have a better sense of wellbeing if their loved one’s needs are being met (Williams et al., 2015). Effective communication between a nurse, the patient and their families, along with interprofessional communication strengthen relationships and rapport (Andrade et al., 2019). The indication of having effective communication and a relationship improves outcomes and perception of the situation for the nurse, patient, and family when dealing with an ethical dilemma and end of life care.

The general perception is that nursing is about saving lives and making sick people better so they could go home to their families. Experiences like the story above change nurses’ perspectives about what is required of a nurse. Educating nurses on the amount of compassion that will be required, their personal morals and beliefs that will be tested is not something that can be learned in a classroom. The students are prepared by learning about ethics, morals, and belief systems and by analyzing their opinions with case studies and group discussions. Continuing education of a registered nurse is a requirement to maintain licensure, but also keeps nurses up to date on the latest research and evidence-based practice. As a nurse, ethical dilemmas are inevitable. Therefore, it is important to work as an interprofessional team so that others can bring their knowledge and experience to aide in the ethical decision-making process. Being in the front-line of patient care, nurses need to be able to identify potential dilemmas and take preventative steps by using personal experiences, education, and interprofessional teamwork strengthens a nurse’s ability to manage ethical dilemmas and positive outcomes.

Imagine yourself being unable to walk, unable to see, unable to breath let alone speak. You can’t even scratch an itch. But the worst part of all this, is you still feel sensations of pain, hunger, loneliness and fear, yet you’re unable to react. The topic of euthanasia is one that is cloaked with much ethical deliberation and ambiguity. Numerous forms of euthanasia are recognised, primarily active voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician- assisted suicide elicit the most controversy. Broadly speaking, euthanasia comes from the meaning ‘good death’, it is the practise of assisted suicide with the intention of relieving pain and suffering. Reflecting the status quo of most countries, it is currently illegal in the majority of Australian Sates due to the ethical dilemma it brings about. It poses as a difficult choice where several courses of action could be taken, however, either of which may entail transgressing a moral principle. Advocates for euthanasia argue people have a right to make their own decisions regarding death in order to alleviate pain and suffering, in contrast there are the antithesis which argue for the sanctity of life and offer a healthier alternative, this being palliative care.

The dispute in Australia society concerning the ethical issue of euthanasia has seen an assortment of stances voiced by both religious and non-religious persons and groups. Taking the religious outlook, Pope John Paul II asserted that ‘euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human life’. Evidently, the Roman Catholic Church regards euthanasia as morally improper. Through teachings and scriptures, the Church has always placed a notable emphasis on the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment “you shall not kill”. The Church continues to preach the fact that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being. Pope John Pall II spoke out against what he labels as a ‘culture of death’ in contemporary society. Followed by stating that ‘human beings should always prefer the way of life to the way of death’. Instead he suggested that palliative care should be the viable option. This form of care helps people live their life as fully and as contentedly as possible when living with a life-limiting or terminal illness. Palliative care identifies and treats symptoms which may entail physical, emotional, spiritual or social trauma. Contrastingly, other secular organisations who quarrel with the current law, like The World Federation of Right to Die or Dying with Dignity who pursue the change in the law to enhance choice at the end of life. They seek legislation that enables competent adults experiencing ceaseless suffering from a terminal or incurable illness, to receive medical assistance to end their life peacefully, at the time of their choosing. A well-renowned pro-euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke is additionally an individual who has strong beliefs regarding the topic, on April 29th 2009 Nitschke voiced his somewhat provocative opinion, saying: ‘it seems we demand humans to live with indignity, pain and anguish whereas we are kinder to our pets when their suffering becomes too much. It simply is not logical or mature. Trouble is, we have had too many centuries of religious nonsense’. Regaining an insight into the adverse ideals of the secular organisations which promote choice, dignity and contrasting it to that of those who take a more religious perspective, we detect that there is a significant disparity.

With the continually rising ethical issues, subsists methods of ethical decision-making which help us identify problems, then further examine, evaluate and resolve issues that have recently surfaced. A common example of an ethical decision-making method is moral relativism, this being viewing morals as entirely relative to different societies and contexts (no moral absolutes). Consequently, whether an act is right can be contingent on the context (such as culture) in which it takes place. Contrastingly, to religious traditions like Catholicism who are absolute, meaning they apply to all people, irrespective of individuals personal beliefs and values or those of the society they belong to. A disadvantage of moral relativism is that truth, right and wrong and justice aren’t all accounted for. Just because a group of people believe that something is just does not make it so. Though relativism is contemplated to be a ‘simple theory’ that respects the ethics of other cultures, it has the potential to lead to everyone’s views being seems as equal, inevitably stimulating a problem when evaluating the morality behind particular proceedings. In terms of euthanasia, moral relativism upholds the idea that individuals are allowed to have their own desires and ultimately gives them responsibility for their own actions. Moral relativism, in this case would be based on pro-choice, saying their choice should be based on the person and their individual ideals. However, they also argue for situationism, this suggesting that human behaviour can be determined by surrounding circumstances rather than by one’s personal qualities. To reiterate, moral relativists can take either the for or against approach to euthanasia depending on the given situation, this may consist of, the time and place it takes place, the people involves, the seriousness of the illness NOT on whether the outcome should be the same for everyone thus, disregarding their own wishes.

The deliberate act taken with the purpose of ending a life, in order to relieve tenacious pain, known as Euthanasia is an ethical deliberation continually argued about to this day. The issue stimulates ethical and moral viewpoint from several different perspectives, however the sanctity of life is inimitable and an authentic gift from God. Life is a beautiful, miraculous gift that needs to be savoured. This being said, making people ensure immeasurable pain against their wishes violates personal freedoms, ergo making it immoral to compel people to continue to live a life they don’t want to. Despite this blunt statement, it conveys the harsh reality of the situation. I believe situation is an influence needing to be factored into the decisions made, this is because different people have different experiences and different levels of severity.

In 2011, a man named David Laffer entered a New York pharmacy with the intent of stealing painkillers for himself and his wife. After a brief conversation with the pharmacist, Laffer took out his gun and shot him in the abdomen. He then shot the pharmacist’s wife and unloaded more bullets into the wounded pharmacist. He also proceeded to kill two customers in the shop; including a 71-year-old man who he shot in the back of the head. He proceeded to calmly fill his bag with the drugs, wipe down the counter and make his way home. Eventually, Laffer was apprehended and convicted with four counts of murder; resulting in four consecutive life sentences. Laffer was described by the judge as having ‘unnatural viscousness’ as he fiercely promised to place him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. For the majority of us, solitary confinement seems fitting for someone like Laffer; it expresses our revulsion for such a brutal, unprovoked killing spree. But is this practice justifiable?

Good morning classmates and Alison. Today’s presentation will explore the moral principles and ethical dilemmas associated with solitary confinement; and, if at all, whether it is an ethical punishment for certain lawbreakers. The realm of disciplinary isolation delves into moral dilemmas regarding human nature and the ethics of punishment itself. Solitary confinement is the isolation of incarcerated men and women for a definite or indefinite period of time; ranging from a few days to even decades. With regard to 2016 estimates, 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners in the United States alone are being held in some form of solitary confinement; majority as a result of minor offences.

The legal system itself presents a distinct moral dilemma, as it involves the state’s infliction of intentionally harsh treatment on members of society that would otherwise be morally impermissible. For example, outside of the penal system, I’m sure that most of us would agree that you should not imprison someone against their will. People can’t just walk down the street and choose victims to take home and lock in their basement for five years. The moral challenge arising from punishment is to establish what makes it permissible to subject those who have broken the law to treatment that would otherwise be morally impermissible.

As true utilitarians are concerned with the consequences of actions and maximising utility, they would suggest that solitary confinement is in fact an ethical practice; as removing certain inmates from the prison environment has an overall positive effect on society. Two particular claims are prominent from a utilitarian perspective: deterrence of crime and reducing violence. Officials often make the empirical assertion that isolation housing establishes a safer environment for both correction officers and inmates. Segregation housing is applied to protect the two parties from violent persons who otherwise could not be controlled; acting as a threat of punishment and motivating prisoners to behave and obey the law. It also prevents coordination of illicit activity by separating gang members and terrorists. The president of the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association asserted that a typical year in the New York correction system would see 1,200 reported incidents of inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults. Also, isolation units provide economic benefits to society and the local population as they require higher level specialty staffing; resulting in a large quantity of jobs for correction officers.

On the other hand, Kantian ethical theory does not focus on the consequences, and demands that we act with due respect to each other. In conjunction with the vice rule, the Kantian would argue that prolonged periods in isolation inflicts severe, irreversible psychological harm in such a way that could be avoided by taking another course of action, the least vicious action. Placing an individual in solitary confinement does not respect that individual’s own autonomy and rational nature regardless of what crime they have committed. Universal law suggests that we should never treat people as simply just a means, but always at the same time as an end. This could be interpreted that instead of condemning prisoners to isolation units, there could be platforms of rehabilitation and activities that can make a positive impact on the lives of those in prison. Correctional institutions should not be in place simply as a means to punish those who have broken the law; but provide an ends in the form of reformation of character and rehabilitation that will produce functioning, contributing members of society upon release. Frank De Palma, a man who spent 22 years and 36 days in solitary confinement for grand larceny, battery, second-degree murder and attempted murder eventually developed an extreme, but not so uncommon, mental illness which worked as the opposite to claustrophobia. Too much open space would make all of the air around him become pressure and force, describing it as if his heart and brain were about to explode. Guard’s caught wind of this and used it to take advantage of Frank by threatening to take him out of his cell. His condition was so bad that he refused to go to the dentist and used a strong nylon string from his mattress to pull four of his teeth out. Upon his release, the only comfort Frank could find in the alien environment outside of the prison was locking himself in his bathroom and turning off all the lights for hours and days on end.

In order to attempt to understand the psychological effects of solitary confinement, Lisa Guenther invited Omar Mualimm, a man who spent five years in segregation housing, to speak at a conference she was organising in Nashville. Omar described the ‘concrete abyss’ as sensory and existential annihilation; an emptiness of space without horizon, a decimation of orientation and time. He spent 24 hours a day, for 5 years in a grey cell with no contact with anyone other than guards whose job it was to incapacitate him. He was so lonely that he began to hallucinate words in the wind and his mind began to reflect his cell; a blank static. Omar illustrated solitary confinement as a living death, death because it eradicated everything that characterises humanness. Omar stated, “the very essence of life, I came to learn during those seemingly endless days, is human contact, and the affirmation of existence that comes with it. Losing that contact, you lose your sense of identity. You become nothing.”

German philosopher Edmund Husserl explains consciousness as consciousness of something; with the mind not a thing but a relation. Meaning is not ‘located’ in the brain like a shirt is in a closet; rather, it surfaces through an ever-changing relationship between the act of thinking and the objects of thought. Solitary confinement eliminates a clear perception one’s self as an objectively existing person; transforming us into merely an abstract capacity for awareness.

In conclusion, solitary confinement as a long-term practice is a life sentence. One day a prisoner may be physically released from their cell, but there always seems to be a part of them that wants the abyss; where there’s no feeling and no thoughts. It is an extreme process that has the propensity to inflict severe psychological and physical harm that is tantamount to torture. It must be approached in a situational manor, being restricted to cases where the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. Solitary disciplining can have a legitimate place in the penal system, but only in exceptional circumstances where all other options are exhausted.

Introduction

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with what is right and wrong, within the health context ethics can broadly be defined by four accepted principles of: Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. These principles act as a guide when dealing with the broader Ethical and Legal issues that all health care workers deal with throughout their career. Although these four above mentioned principles of ethical standards have remained unchanged, the ethical standards of today have begun to change in favor of a utilitarian approach to health that the “greatest good for the greatest number” which comes from John Stuart Mill a philosopher on utilitarian ethics.

Although ethics and legal standards are still dealt with on a case by case basis and in times where no law exists for a case then different depending on the context including the type of profession, (Doctor, Nurse, Social worker), where you are working and if you are working with a public or private practice. However, the broader ethical and legal standards will not differ greatly. This paper aims to thoroughly explain a series of Ethical dilemmas that face health practitioners and how they can be solved within the Legal boundaries put in place by the national Government of Queensland and Common law of Australia.

Ethical Issues

Rachel believes that because of Ross’s character he would not want to continue living in a state where he cannot be independent in his actions, and since the health care team believe there is little chance of full recovery from the damage he sustained from the accident, and that they should end his treatment as he had previously clarified that he did not want to live in an incapacitated state. Rachel’s ethical views fall in line with Consequentialism. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that is focused on the outcome or consequence of actions. Consequentialist ethics is broken down into two parts defining what is “good” and how one can approach the defined “good”. The form of consequentialist ethics that Rachel believes is best known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarian’s believe that the right actions or “good” actions are the ones that produce the greatest amount of happiness and the reverse of this would be an outcome that does not produce the greatest happiness. In Ross’s case, he is happier dying then remaining in an immobile state having to rely on machines to live so the best option is to allow him to pass away peacefully, therefore, maximizing the overall happiness.

Chandler views on Ross’s condition in a more positive light believing that given time Ross would be able to recover and showed some signs of being aware of his surroundings and based on research he had down on patients suffering from coma’s or brain injuries he was adamant that Ross’s was to remain on life support. Chandler believes that despite Ross current condition and his character of not wanting to be looked after were less important for health and wellbeing if in the long term there was potential for a recovery and that it was in Ross’s best interest to stay on treatment. Despite the healthcare team and Rachel believing that Ross’s recovery was bleak. This view of Ethics falls more in line with the Kantian view of ethics that the end does not justify the means. The idea proposed by Immanuel Kant is known as Deontology and it focuses more on protecting

the individuals need as opposed to utilitarianism which focuses on the greater good for society. In the medical context deontology focuses on what are the duties that a healthcare professional is to withhold regardless of the outcome. They focus on what the benefits of the person are in this case that Ross could potentially recover and can be there for his children, and more importantly he gets to keep living his life.

Rachel believes that since there is no chance of recovery for Ross based on the severity of the injury and the advice of the medical team. As the ex-wife of Ross, she knows him well enough to justify terminating his treatment as it’s what he would have wanted.

The challenge lies in Ross being unable to agree to procedure and in face of death individuals often change their opinion on things including being on life support. There is also some bias in Rachel’s beliefs as she would gain full custody of her and Ross’s children. Ross’s Boss Chandler feels guilty that he was not able to do more to prevent Ross’s accident and even though when Ross was conscious, he resisted medical treatment Chandler still feels like even the slightest chance of Ross surviving overalls even Ross’s own will to not continue living on treatment. Chandler had also been doing some research on patients who had recovered from brain injuries or woken up from coma, so this influenced his decision to continue treatment.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization (UNESCO), made a stance of Bioethics by publishing a paper in 2005 outlining principles that could internationally be agreed on. This publication is known as the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. In this publication one of the principles that relates to Autonomy and individual responsibility which is about the capacity of an individual to make their own decisions on something and to responsible for those actions as well as respecting the autonomy of others except in circumstances where someone is not able to capable of exercising autonomy. In Ross’s case this is an ethical dilemma is determining whether these circumstances constitute an exception and whether they are in Ross’s best interest which is difficult as Ross was unable to consent to treatment therefore the decision must be made on his behalf either by his Ex-wife or friend Chandler, unless there was a living will be indicating how to proceed. Another principal outlined is Consent which is challenging as before the coma Ross very strongly refused treatment by paramedics but due to his life being threatened the healthcare team decided to intervene medically despite the lack of consensus.

Legal Issues

Consent in healthcare is defined as an agreement between a patient and healthcare professional to provide treatment and care including testing, medicines treatment and procedures. For consent to be given the patient must also meet other criteria including: A doctor or healthcare professional explain the different options for treatment, the potential risks associated with each operation and how likely those risks are, ensure you understand the benefits of the procedure, and the purpose of your consent. (healthdirect, 2018).

However the laws regarding valid consent in Australia require that “A mentally competent patient has an absolute right to refuse to consent to medical treatment for any reason, rational or irrational, or for no reason at all, even where that decision may lead to his or her own death” (Royal Courts of Justice, 2004). After Ross’s first accident at the Emergency department he refused to cooperate with nursing staff so the healthcare practitioners were unable to operate and fully assess Ross’s condition if the healthcare practitioners had decided to proceed they would be liable for failing to uphold their duty of care, negligence and be liable for a medical malpractice suit.

However consent does not to be given in an emergency, if the patient is not in a condition to consent. Since Ross was unconscious and in a life threatening condition the health care practitioners were able to provide treatment for Ross’s injuries without being liable for a malpractice suit. Queensland law states that “A life-sustaining measure may be withheld or withdrawn for an adult without consent if the adult’s health provider reasonably considers the adult has impaired capacity for the health matter concerned”. (Guardianship and Administration Act, 2000). This means that the decision for Ross’s treatment is to be decided by the healthcare team who believed it was in Ross’s best interest to receive treatment while he sustained injuries preventing consent.

Have you heard the news about the moral dilemma of self-driving car? It’s a car with an AI programmed to forfeit its travelers to spare the lives of others, in case of a genuine mishap. It works on the principle of utilitarian morals, which would try to limit the total number of casualties in an accident, regardless of whether it implies hurting individuals in the vehicle (Gent). As describe by John Stuart Mill utilitarianism is the view that dictates an action is right or wrong by looking at the net out-come of the action (Schefczyk). Or in other word if the action you have taken results in happiness then the action is said to be the right one and if it doesn’t then the action is a wrong. We all can agree that our final goal is to be happy and not to be any pain and to achieve that goal, according to utilitarianism, the path we take cannot solely be define as right or wrong. Some people might agree with it and some might not but it doesn’t mean one of them is wrong because we don’t study philosophy to argue who is right or who is not but to understand the meaning of it logically and implement it to our daily life. If you ask me what’s my opinion on it, I disagree with the concept of utilitarianism because causing one to suffer for the shake of other is wrong, killing anyone for greater good is never justified, and using peoples’ life as a mere means to achieve one’s goal is also wrong. To prove my statement, I’ll be using characters from the literature and show how utilitarianism is not an ethical doctrine.

In the short story by Ursula K. Le Guin The one who walk away from Omelas, though the action yields a happiness for majority of people, they still didn’t consider it to be a right course of action. In this story, Le Guin portrays the idealistic city of Omelas during the celebration of summer. The city is portrayed as the ideal place where one can get what they need and everybody living in this city are upbeat aside from one kid. This youngster is browsed from the populace to fill in as a sacrifice enabling the remaining of the city to live in harmony and bounty. The child is put in a little, austere room having little to eat and is totally cut off from whatever remains of society aside from the short visits from the individuals who come to the child. At the point when the subject of that city finds out about the enduring the youngster is experiencing for the harmony and bliss of every other person, they are not any more prepared to do genuine joy and they in the long run leave on singular adventure into the obscure and stay away for the indefinite future. (Lee). So, let’s think about it, if you were the one living in the city of Omelas and you come to know about the child locked up in the dungeon for the sake of your happiness will you still live in that city knowing the child is suffering for your happiness? I hope probably not. And if you did decide to leave the city like rest of the citizen, so that the child can live a happy life or you don’t want the happiness gain by the sorrow of others’ than you are going against the main concept of utilitarianism which state sacrificing something for the greater good is justified or the action is right if the outcome brings happiness.

In the DC comic about Batman, Batman follows a strong code of molarity where he believes killing is not justified no matter how great an outcome it might harvest. Every one of us have either read or watch the Batman movie and we know who Batman is and how he saved the city of Gotham from the evils many times. I’ll be just highlighting the main point in here like though Batman had several chances to kill the Joker, he never kills him, all he does is throw Joker back in Arkham because Batman has his own rule of ethics that he follows (Snyder). And we even know no matter how many times Batman locks the Joker, he eventually escapes and kills innocent citizen and when he does, won’t it be a little bit of Batman’s fault? If Batman did killed Joker then is greater good a good enough reason to take a life and who gets to decide whose life is justified to take and whose not? Like me, Batman too doesn’t believe in the idea of utilitarianism because it’s true if Batman had killed the Joker it would have yield greater happiness but by killing Joker, Batman believed that he too will falls in the same boat as the bad guys. To quote Batman: “If you kill a killer, the amount of killers in a room remains the same”. And also, Batman teach us that we don’t have the right to weigh human lives like objects, not even the Joker’s. Similar situation has been portraited by Fyodor Dostoevsky on his book Crime and Punishment where one of his character says “If you killed her and took her money, and used it to devote yourself to serving all humanity and the common good … wouldn’t those thousands of good deeds wipe out that one tiny little crime?” (Dostoevsky 60). And if you believed Batman should had killed Joker as he is a villain and save the thousands of innocent people do you also think Raskolnikov should also killed the old lady and use the money to serve for the humanity?

In the Berserk manga written and illustrated by Kentaro Miura, Griffith used his comrade as a mere mean to achieve his dream which his own friend, Guts, believes to be a wrong action. The setting of this manga is in the time of medieval where war has been broken in all corners of the world. In this manga one of the characters, Griffith, has a dream of creating a kingdom of peace where none of his citizen has to worry about starving to dead or dying as a collateral damage of the war. To achieve his dream, he at the end sacrifice all his friends and the love ones who fought beside him during all the battels to the devil (Miura). If you think about it, Griffith had a noble dream of creating a peaceful country in a world where everyone is fighting for the territory, but the path he took, sacrificing the life of all his friends, would you call the path he took the right path to achieve one’s dream? Hopefully not because using peoples’ life as just a mere means of archiving one’s goal is ethically wrong.

In conclusion, consequences have a place, and should be considered, however we should also consider other standards like human rights, and what our decisions and judgments say in regards to us. Morality is about more than the consequences of our actions, it is also about the action itself so it’s important to judge the action by itself to determine whether it a right course or not. If consequences is only the thing that matter than the self-driving cars with utilitarian algorithms should be universally enforce and there should not be any dilemma. Therefore, utilitarianism is not always a right code of ethics for us to follow. There are lots of other ethical principle and its up to the individual to choose which principle is best of them and also consider its advantages and disadvantages.