Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology in the Case of Patient with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
I do not have many details on my paper since the full paper is not due until 11/6, but I need my argumentative thesis statement by tomorrow. Please see the details attached
Writing papers in philosophy is how ideas and arguments are communicated. The paper for this class is an argumentative paper where you will clearly argue in favor of a position. Important: Your intended audience is someone who has never taken an ethics course before!
The assignment: You will analyze how utilitarianism and Kantian deontology resolve a specific case. You must take a clear stance on which theory you feel offers the preferable solution to the dilemma in the case and offer an argument in favor of one theory over the other. Important to note: the case below is presented as it happened so you have as many details as possible. However, a utilitarian or a Kantian does not have to agree with what happened in the case. You want the paper to focus more on what a utilitarian or a Kantian would say should happen. It might be the case that one or both would agree with what happened and that’s ok! You just shouldn’t feel like a utilitarian or a Kantian would have to agree with what actually happened.
The case: In 2014, 17-year-old Cassandra Callender was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a treatable form of immune cell cancer in the lymphatic system. In young adults and children with Cassandra’s condition, treatment with chemotherapy and radiation provides an 85% chance of long-term survival. Cassandra, however, objected to undergoing chemotherapy because she did not want “such toxic harmful drugs” in her body and wished instead to explore alternative treatments. She understood that, without chemotherapy, she would most likely die. But in Cassandra’s view, her decreased quality of life caused by the chemotherapy would not outweigh any length of life gain that the treatment would provide.While minors cannot make their own medical decisions in most cases, Cassandra’s parents agreed with her choice to refuse chemotherapy. However, courts have the authority to overrule parental decisions when those decisions threaten the life of a child. In doing so, courts temporarily remove parental custody and appoint a guardian to make medical decisions for the minor. In 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court, after consulting with medical professionals, ruled that Cassandra was to undergo chemotherapy against her will. This kind of treatment can require up to six months of intense treatment and care: In Cassandra’s case, she first went through surgery to have a port in her chest installed for drug administration. She was then confined to a hospital, with her cell phone taken away, often strapped to her bed and sedated. Physicians are morally required to avoid causing harm as well as to act in their patients’ best interests. Allowing Cassandra to decline chemotherapy would likely have resulted in her death, and therefore was not in her best interest. Cassandra appealed to the “mature minor” doctrine, which grants minors the authority to make their own medical decisions if the court deems they are mature enough to do so. This request was denied not because of concerns that Cassandra was too immature, but strictly on the advice of medical professionals. As a consequence, Cassandra was forced to endure chemotherapy.
APA Format, 1000-1500 words
Cassandra’s Case
Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
Cassandra’s case study
Individuals in different professions often face dilemmas in making significant ethical decisions and determining whether they are in their best interests. Different theories are used to establish a rationale when making decisions. Deontology (Deontological ethics), and Utilitarianism, are some ethical theories used when explaining these decisions. Deontological ethics focuses on the right and wrong of action on a given moral obligation. It is an approach that focuses on actions themselves, whether they are right or wrong. Kantian deontology considers an action right if it accords with a categorical imperative ( a universal law all individuals must follow regardless of the circumstance). On the other hand, Utilitarian ethics focuses on the consequences of the actions in which the right actions maximize utility, i.e., maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Utilitarianism holds a logical position in daily life by enabling individuals to distinguish between right and wrong and things that are of benefit or not. If an action brings happiness, then the action is good, and if the action undertaken is not satisfying, it is bad. Thus, the theory focuses on the consequences of the action taken. Even though the outcomes are unclear, it encourages individuals to take actions that make them happy and high achievers. In the case of Cassandra, Utilitrianism offered the preferred solution as her life was safed and the end result increased happiness while, in deontology, the case would be solved for her not to take chemotherapy and radiation as she did not will the good will, which morally right. Thus, utilitarianism solved Cassandras life and gave her a prolonged life. Thus, the end results of an action( Utilitarinismm) is more significant than actions( Deontology) themselves provided the result is for the benefit and goodness of the people.
Case Study
Cassandra Callender, the 17-year-old minor, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a form of immune cell cancer in the lymphatic system. Cassandra was against chemotherapy despite providing an 85% chance of long life. She did not want the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation even though she knew that not taking them would result in death. She preferred to have her short life happy rather than endure radiation and have a long life she did not enjoy. Her parents respected and supported her decision even if the court ruled against their wish not to have chemotherapy. She underwent chemotherapy in which she was confined in the hospital, and her cell phone was taken from her. She was strapped in her bed and was sedated not to cause harm to herself and others.
Kantian Denteology
Kantian ethics argues that actions can be ethical if they are motivated by duty or if a universal objective law may rationally will their maxim. In addition, Kant's deontology is related to the definition of duties, wrong or right, which are the basic deontic categories, and optional, obligatory, and supererogatory (Cressman et al., 2019). Further, he argued that right or wrong is different from good or bad in that they dictate actions in value categories. Also, Kant strongly believes morality is logical and that ethics comprises directions about what we ought to do. Kant uses hypothetical and categorical imperatives to emphasize his ethical theories. Hypothetical imperative distinguishes actions an individual should take to achieve a specific goal. For instance, if an individual wants to earn better grades, they should study hard to achieve the goal. Conversely, categorical imperative gives particular actions individuals should perform on moral grounds. The actions are not dependent on whether they make the individual feel good or bad or the environment surrounding the context of actions.
Kant concludes that human duties are obtained from categorical imperative, in which imperative means order or command. Unlike other authoritative orders, these commands come from within human reasoning but perform a similar task to Specific moral actions. Kantian ethics claims that all individuals are equal and thus, treat all people equally and in fairness. Further, it emphasizes the Law of non-contradiction; you would not do anything that is not rational and insists that everyone has to do what is morally right.
Thus, according Kantian deontology, the Cassandra’s case was judged wrongly as she did not will the action. Katian ethics argue that the prospective consequences of the activities should not be considered, but instead focus on whether it was right or wrong. Cassandra and her parent decided not to undergo chemotherapy and radiation and preferred other treatments that were much better and less harsh. Cassandra did not want to undergo chemotherapy and radiation despite understanding the risks involved because she chose to have a short life, yet a happy one.
On the other hand, physicians and the court have a moral obligation to save lives and not to prolong suffering. Even though they believed the chemotherapy provided an 85% chance of long life for Cassandra, they were morally obligated to involve the parents who provided consent regarding their child. But in this case Kantian would argue based on goodwill, and the fact that the court did not honor the will of the parent and Cassandra made it morally wrong.
Thus, according to Kant, it was not morally right to force chemotherapy and radiation on Cassandra. The actions themselves were against her will, and thus, did not will the end which meant she did not also will the means ( Chemotherapy). Overall, Kantian ethics would have chosen to follow Cassandra’s wish not to undergo chemotherapy. It was morally right as she understood the weight of the matter but the court ignored her.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarian ethics focuses on the consequences of actions in which the right actions maximize utility, in...