Question

You have two patients who currently need the use of a ventilator, a machine to move air into and out of a patient’s lungs when their breathing ability is severely impaired. There is only one ventilator available, and one patient is already using it. The patient using the ventilator is a 70-year-old retired nurse. The other patient is a 20-year-old college student studying communications. Assume that if you remove the ventilator from the 70-year-old at this time, it is 80% likely that they will not survive without it. Note that long-term ventilator use can also be extremely harmful.

There is an ethical conflict in this case: some considerations motivate you to continue using the ventilator on the 70-year-old patient, while some considerations motivate you to remove the ventilator from the 70-year-old and use it on the 20-year-old.

q1:

Which of these is the best assessment of how to resolve this ethical conflict, using the Doctrine of Double Effect?

Group of answer choices

It depends only on whether the action of saving the 20-year-old is permissible, and it is always permissible to save a life.

It depends on what the direct action is, and whether that is permissible. Removing the ventilator has bad effects in this case, but is not on its own impermissible.

It depends on whether the 70-year-old patient volunteers to give up the ventilator to help the 20-year-old.

It depends only on which patient got there first, which in this case is the 70-year-old. Therefore the 70-year-old should remain on the ventilator.

q2:

Which of these is the best assessment of how to resolve this ethical conflict, using Utilitarianism (in the classic/act form)?

Group of answer choices

It depends on whether removing the ventilator from the 70-year-old patient is actively harming them, or is just passively allowing their illness to take its course.

It depends on which option will have better overall outcomes, so it depends most on which patient is more likely to survive, and how good their condition will be if they do survive.

It only depends on whether you can be happy with yourself for making the decision.

It depends most on whether the patients gave informed consent. If they both gave informed consent, then you can use the ventilator on either one of them.

Answer 1

Question No 1

Answer:

• It depends only on whether the action of saving the 20-year-old is permissible, and it is always permissible to save a life.

                            The doctrine of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.

Question No 2

Answer:

• It depends most on whether the patients gave informed consent. If they both gave informed consent, then you can use the ventilator on either one of them.

                 Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.