Critical Thinking and Application Paper
1. Listing of Ethical Issues
In a way, tolerating the abuse of alcohol and drug use by doing nothing at a time, may lead to further jeopardizing the health and reputation of Mary’s parents
Effects of the situation to Mary’s brother and his family
Existence of privacy laws between the doctor and Mary’s parents
Protecting the reputation of Mary’s parents in the community and the church
Loss of legal source of drugs, which may lead Mary’s parents to seek similar, costly, and more dangerous drugs on the streets
Given side effects of their alcohol and drug addiction
2. Different options or optional responses/actions to resolve the central ethical issue
- Talk to the parents about the problem, including the consequences of their actions and the possible solutions that they may be thinking about
- Mary can seek the help from his brother and his family, including the kids or the grandchildren of Mary’s parents
- Mary and his brother can talk to the doctor. She or they can ask him to tell him of the situation. She or they can even ask the doctor to advice their parents to stop using the drugs he had prescribed
- Mary can talk to the closest friends, colleagues, and church friends of her parents to help persuade them to stop drug abuse. They could also be the key to knowing the problems of her parents
- Mary can take her parents to undergo medical check up regarding their condition, including the possible complications of their drug use and abuse
- Mary, including her brother and his family can come up with activities or ways to distract their parents to stop using the drugs. Such activities include engaging in sports, music, or travel.
- Mary can consult Alcoholic Anonymous and other local health or social workers in the community, in order to provide advice her on what to do regarding her parents’ situation
- Mary can send her parents to the hospital, institutions, therapists, or to rehabilitation centers
- Aside from rehabilitation centers, Mary can send her parents to psychotherapists, in order to help her identify their problems and the causes of their addiction, and to be able to help them be assessed for treatment
- Mary can accompany her parents to transfer to another town, city, state, or to another country if possible
- Mary can hire a guardian for her parents for further observation, assistance, surveillance, and treatment.
- The whole family can undergo a family therapy and community therapy, along with the collaboration, assistance, and help of health or social workers
3. Individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups relevant to the central ethical issue
a) Mary – Mary is the primary concerned person in this ethical issue. This is because she was the person to closely observe and take note of the changes in her parents. Because she is single and still living with them, Mary has the primary responsibility to take care of them, most especially given their condition.
b) Mary’s brother and his family – Another stakeholder for this ethical issue is Mary’s brother and his family, which apparently includes his wife and kids. Like Mary, her brother is also responsible for taking care of his parents even if he already has his own family. This is because having a family does not change the fact that he is still the son of his parents.
c) Doctor – The doctor of Mary’s parents is another stakeholder considered for this ethical issue. This is because he or she is the one responsible for giving the drug to Mary’s parents. The doctor was also the one responsible for assessing and examining the condition (back pain) of Mary’s parents, including their follow up check up. However, because it was not indicated that Mary’s parents had follow up check ups with the doctor, this situation can claim that the doctor was not responsible enough and not competent enough to handle their case and take care of them.
d) Church and its members – It was mentioned in the case that Mary’s parents were active in the church. As such, it can be assumed that her parents have close friends in their church. Their closest friends must be concerned of their situation or inactivity in church meetings and other activities. The priest or pastor, including their friends must be concerned to take time to go to their house and visit them. Their church friends may also be responsible for providing her parents with spiritual guidance, and even be the most likely to have the ability to persuade them to stop their addiction through spiritual lectures and advices. More importantly, they must be the most trusted friends of Mary’s parents, thus, they might have an idea as to their problems of dilemmas.
e) Community and community members – Lastly, the community members, including the colleagues, neighbors, and other acquaintances of Mary’s parents are considered. This is because they might also have an idea regarding the problems that her parents are dealing with. They may also observe or notice the changes happening to her parents, and even know the persons her parents are relating with.
4. Application of relevant principles
One of the theories of ethics that can be applied in this ethical issue is the ethics theory of Immanuel Kant, which was termed as Kantianism. It has been reported that Kant argues that a person is free when he or she is bound by his or her own will and not by the will of another person. For Kant, the only truly moral action is generated by a pure motive, where the truly moral person will do what should be done, regardless of the intensity of pros and cons of the consequences, but simply because one knows, he or she must obey the moral law (Johnson).
In addition, Kant’s ethical theory can be divided into three parts. The first part is the general dictum, which emphasizes that, “if you wish to act morally, act as if your action in each circumstance is to become law for everyone, yourself included, in the future”. The second categorical imperative states that, “if you wish to act morally, always treat other human beings as ‘ends in themselves’ and never merely as means”. Lastly, the third categorical imperative stresses that, “if you wish to act morally, always act as a member of a community where all the other members of the community are ‘ends’, just as you are” (Seedhouse 55).
The core ethical principle of Kant’s ethical theory states that if Mary would be doing a moral action, then it must be generated by a pure motive, thus, making her do the things that should be done, regardless of good or bad consequences, as long as it is in compliance with the moral law. Mary knows that drug addiction, and even alcoholism yields unwanted and negative effects to her parents, their family, and the whole community. Her motive is also pure, as she only wants the best for her parents and their family. Thus, whatever her solution to the problem may be it is then focused in attaining a moral action that is grounded on moral law.
Another theory related to the issue is the theory of utilitarianism, which involves seeing the actions and welfare of individuals equal. In this sense, good actions lead to good consequences, while bad actions lead to bad consequences. One of its types is Act Utilitarianism, which promotes moral conduct that produces the greatest balance of good over evil, thus, a balance of good and evil is applied to every action (Cassens 43).
In addition, in Act Utilitarianism, one must ask, “What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?” (Frankena 35). In this case, telling the truth cannot be generalized as a moral act. This is because one must be able to assess and realize if telling the truth would yield balance between good and evil.
Based on this ethical theory, it can be perceived that a certain action, although considered moral, when done, may not always yield a positive or a negative consequence. The example of truth telling may also be related to Mary’s ethical issue. In this case, the truth in telling his brother, the doctor, church members, and community members may not yield negative responses, as thought upon by Mary. Instead, Mary can manage to tell the truth to the different stakeholders mentioned, in order to help her help her parents go through their situation. In this sense, Mary’s action in telling the real situation of her parents to the different stakeholders would be considered moral, as it would produce the greatest balance between good and evil.
The last ethical theory considered is rule utilitarianism theory, which uses rules to assess the balance of good and evil, thus, there is conformity of actions to valuable rules. In addition, from the utilitarian perspective, what is considered ethical can be summarised in the basic tenet ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (Cassens 44).
Moreover, for Rule Utilitarianism, “the question is not which action has the greatest utility, but which rule has. The question that must be asked would be, “what would happen if everyone were to do that in such cases”? In addition, the principle of utility also comes in, not in determining what particular action to perform, but in determining what the rules shall be, being able to promote the greatest general good for everyone (Frankena 37).
In the issue being experienced by Mary, it can be perceived that informing the situation going through by her parents would promote the greatest good for everyone. This is because, through Mary’s informing the stakeholders, the welfare of her parents, their family, and the whole community would be given importance. Rules are important in Rule Utilitarianism. This is because rules would enable one to make decisions that would promote the greatest good for everyone. In this case, rules, such as rules in drug or substance addiction must be put in first hand in order to make the right decisions regarding Mary’s parents.
5. Choice of wisest option and justification
Among the possible options, the last option is the wisest option that can be used, which would be said to promote the greatest good for Mary, for her family, for the community, and most especially, for her parents. The last option states that the whole family can undergo a family therapy and community therapy, along with the collaboration, assistance, and help of health or social workers. It has been reported that family therapy, or couple/family systems therapy is a branch of psychotherapy related to relationship counseling that works with families and couples in intimate relationships or in terms of interaction systems between family members to nurture change and development (‘Family Therapy’ 2008). In relation to family therapy is community therapy or milieu therapy, which is a planned treatment environment in which everyday events and interactions are therapeutically designed for the purpose of enhancing social skills and building confidence. Also known as “life space”, it provides a safe environment rich with social opportunities and immediate feedback from the caring staff (‘Milieu Therapy’ 2007). This was deemed the wisest option due to three main reasons:
Primarily, undergoing family therapy would enable Mary’s family to strengthen their family ties, such as done through bonding and communication. Through family therapy, each member would be able to express love and concern for one another, make up for the lost time, and show support to one another in times of turmoil and distress. In addition, this would provide the opportunity for the family to change their bad habits, to learn from each other, and grow, develop, and mature together, and to solve problems together.
Second reason for choosing this option is that through family and community therapy, they would be able to find alternative ways to solve their problems, such as without the influence or presence of any substance. Through such therapies, they would be able to gain new insights, be able to change their attitudes, and change their behavior toward life. In addition, this can would be a good opportunity to develop a fresher confidence, self-esteem, skills, competencies, new practices and beliefs, positive thinking, and particularly, focus on spiritual interventions.
The third reason is that through such forms of therapies, more interaction with the members of the community would serve as a good distraction for Mary’s parents to further prevent addiction. Increased interaction means more people to talk to and relate with, thus, providing opportunities to get and share ideas with. They would have the chance to participate in different activities, thus, helping to stimulate their mind, body and soul, which would not give room for idle time.
6. Identifying logical fallacies (Goree, et al. 68-75)
a) Ad hominem abusive: “How can you take drugs prescribed by that doctor? He’s the most stupid and most irresponsible doctor in this town!” – said by Mary to her mother
b) Ad hominem circumstantial: “How would you know how painful their situation is? You are not even at home to see to their condition!” – said by the doctor to Mary
c) Appeal to Emotion: “If you believe that you are still a part of this family, you will help me.” – said by Mary to her brother
d) Invincible Ignorance: “I don’t care what the doctor said. I just know that Mom and Dad must stop taking the drug at all cost!” – said by Mary to his brother
e) Inconsistency: On the day Mary discovered the excessive use of narcotic, her mother said, “I took an extra pill to lessen the back pain much faster.” In another occasion, she said, “I’m taking more to make me more alert.” – said by Mary’s mother to her
Works Cited
Cassens, B.J. Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 2nd ed. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1992.
Family Therapy. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 14 March 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_therapy>.
Frankena, W. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.
Goree, K., Mary Dawn Pyle, Emily Baker, JoAnne Hopkins. Ethics Applied, Edition 4.0. Boston: Pearson Education, 2004.
Johnson, R. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 14 March 2008. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/>.
Milieu Therapy. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 14 March 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milieu_Therapy>.
Seedhouse, D. Ethics: The Heart of Health Care, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment