1. Looking at the different principles of bioethics, I think the principle of respect for persons is applicable in this case. Young Hudson is vulnerable in this case for he is a patient in emergency situation, and a patient with incurable disease, according to his doctors. Also, he is a person with impaired autonomy. In some, if not most accounts, it is stated the hospital lacked confidence in his mother's metal competence. In addition, the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence can also be applied in this case. The principle stated that the procedure should benefit the person concerned. I see it as beneficial to young Hudson because in this case, he wouldn't have to suffer more; and beneficial to his mother because she doesn't have to go through the agony of seeing her child suffer day by day. Thus, I can say that, based from this principles, the doctors are justified in removing the child's breathing tube. Moreover, given the records of young Hudson, it is not considered a violation of a patient's right to health care, because in the first place, the child was in a breathing tube. It just so happened that his condition is not getting any better, so a decision was passed, permitting the doctors to remove his breathing tube.
2. It is difficult to be a philosopher and to come up with a "personal moral system or code." For the purpose of this exam, I won't come up with my "personal moral system or code," rather, I would base on a theory and try to have a revision of such. Personally, I am more inclined to practicing Kantian ethics, in the sense that I often, if not always, choose to do the things I ought to do. Also, in judging other's actions, I often base it on their motives in doing such act, same with my own acts. I often question myself of my motives in doing something. However, Kantian ethics is criticized in different aspects, most especially in his dismissal of emotions as part of morality. I think, in coming up with a "personal moral system or code," it is better to reconcile emotions with Kant's duty-based ethics. Thus, my personal system would consist of these two - emotions and duty - for the very reason that I strongly believe that our motives are driven by our emotions. Also, I believe that it will never be our intention to hurt anyone, so people would act his duty from his motives that won't hurt anyone. As Stace puts it, "isn't it better to do one's duty cheerfully than begrudgingly?" Given this moral system, freedom would be considered as one's disposition to act according to his duty, driven by his motives, based on his emotions. For example, in my case, I know it is my duty to obey my parents, to follow what they want me to do. Base on Kantian ethics, then, I am moral because I am doing what I ought to do. What is my motive in doing such act? It's my love for my parents, because I don't want to hurt them, more so, to disappoint them. It may not be explicitly stated, but my motive not to disappoint them is driven by my emotions, that is, loving them. In this case, I am free because I am doing my duty from my motives and my emotions. In practicing this freedom, I can say that a person is accountable in his own acts. In my example, I am accountable or responsible in the consequences of may actions. One possible consequence would be having a limited choice in life. In relation to my moral system, a moral person would be considered as someone who acts according to his/her duty, based on his/her motives, driven by his/her emotions, not intending to hurt anyone.
(sana po naintindihan nyo ma'am. maraming salamat po sa masayang sem.!)
Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:25 pm