Is it ethical for a Christian doctor to try and save an injured and dying psychopath who has just murdered innocent civilians in a bank robbery including the doctor’s spouse?
Ethics refer to a set of philosophical principles that are used to make a moral judgment or decision in trivial situations including professions in an effort to create a sense of order. However there are situations where moral judgment becomes entangled with human emotions as well as pressure from external forces such as expectations form other people. In such instances one is said to be in an ethical dilemma. Here, the decision to be made requires a deep and thorough analysis of the choices at hand and if possible getting the necessary advice from relevant sources to make a proper decision. An ethical dilemma may have a solution to it but the solution may not always seem fair to those who are onlookers, especially if any of the people expecting a certain decision to be made are emotionally inclined. This paper will use the question above to illustrate the various perspectives that can be held when dealing with an ethical issue. It seeks to elaborate how a moral imperative is often influenced forces outside the stipulated and accepted code of conduct. This phenomena, is what some may call a “greater good” philosophy.
There are different aspects of human nature that differentiate one human from another. Even though we all share the human nature, each individual has their own unique aspects that make them human. This various ways of being human include different personalities, different socializations, different cultures, different cognitions, different genetic make-up as well as different experiences. In the case above the doctor’s cultural aspect of humanity is to be considered. What his culture has socialized him to believe is right or wrong. Moreover, whether or not his culture creates certain exceptions for wrongs that have been done. For instance, in this case, the criminal may not be to blame for his actions for his actions but rather his psychological state, it would therefore be ethical for the doctor to act professionally and treat the patient regardless of what others in his culture may think. On the other hand, one’s personality can be affected by experience both of which are essential to humanity. The doctor may choose to let the criminal die out of bitterness due to his immediate experience of losing his wife in the hands of the criminal or let the criminal die in order to achieve a greater good like ensuring that the criminal doesn’t live to commit another atrocity which may cause more harm.
The golden rule states that, one should do to others what they would want others to do unto them. This rule is often taken in a reverse sense and people perceive it as do to people what they have done unto you. However, this golden rule is the embodiment of a moral imperative and that means doing the right thing regardless of the circumstances, not because it is easy or rewarding, but because it is the right thing to do. The doctor may choose to say that this psychotic criminal ought to die, and that the world would be a much better place without him. However, putting himself in the shoes of the wounded criminal he might want to receive mercy. He may beg for his life. He may plead with the doctor to save him, not because he deserves it, but because he wants to live. This is what would create an ethical implication with regard to taking experience as a human factor and using it to make the choice of letting the criminal die in this case, because it would interfere with the ethics of his profession.
Even though the doctor in this case may be faced by the why-be-moral question outlined in Timothy Chapell’s book Ethics and Experience, which states that what reasons are there to obey the ethical demands even if they are difficult or dangerous to obey?(Chappell 206). The doctor can chose to save the criminal because maybe some of the experiences he has had in his profession have given him great satisfaction to treat a sick patient and see them get well. Another reason that may have resulted from his experiences that would lead him to do what is morally right is the fact that he is a Christian. His experiences with Christianity and Christian values dictate that he should do well to others even when they have wronged you. It’s very correct to say that experiences as an aspect of humanity can shape one ethical descions.
The ethical aspects covered by the problem mentioned above are in two dimensions. The first one, by virtue of being a Christian he has no right to take away life because the Bible condemns it since God alone is the giver and the taker of life. Secondly, his profession as a doctor, requires him to save life and not facilitate the loss of life. The taking away of life is only permitted in cases where the patient has signed a legal document that strictly forbids any medical interventions by a health practioner in an attempt to save their life and in this case, no such permit is present.
Analyzing the scientific perspective entails looking at two scientific sides of a coin. As stated in the dilemma above, the patient is psychotic. His actions maybe because of a mental disorder which maybe in the interest of neural scientists and biological psychologists to use his example as a case study that would increase scientific knowledge in the understanding of why certain criminals commit such heinous acts. The doctor may therefore want to keep him alive such that, such studies maybe carried out. On the other side of the coin, certain studies can only be performed on the brains of such individuals after they are dead. In this case, the doctor may still try his best to save the life of this criminal. However, he may not have the empty feeling that comes with losing a patient because the brain of these individuals can be used in scientific laboratories by neuroscientists to perform experiments and understand its structure for the same purpose of explaining the man’s action.
When it comes to strategy, logic must be considered the doctor must calculate the effects and consequences of his actions and be ready to face whatever outcomes if at all he decides to take away the life of his patient. These consequences may include losing his job as a medical Practioner or possibly facing a lawsuit that might land him in jail for several years. He must therefore be ready to have full credibility for whatever choice he makes. In this case, the rational choice would be to treat the patient because allowing the patient to die would only bring the doctor more problems and pain on top of already having lost a loved one who cannot be returned by allowing the death or vengeance of her murderer.
In the above problem, it’s only right for the doctor to offer treatment to the psychopathic criminal because that is the moral thing to do. Despite such a decision appearing extremely difficult to make, the doctor being a Christian should pay attention to his Christian ethics that dictate that one should do what is good to others. The moral principle of the Christian religion also shows that one has no right to take away another human beings life. The ethical principles of his profession also applies to him in that, him being a doctor he is required to do his best to save life and he is not under any circumstance allowed to take the law into his own hands. This means that even though the criminal has caused intense pain to him and other innocent victims, it’s not in his place to decide what form of judgment should be accorded to the criminal. He should only give the criminal the medical attention he requires because that is his job and what he is morally required to do.
Work Cited
Chappell, Timothy. “Ethics beyond Moral Theory.” Philosophical Investigations 32.3 (2009): 206–243. Web.
Works Cited
Du Bois, W.E.B. “The Souls of Black Folk. 1903.” Three negro classics 91 (1989): 3–89. Web.
King,Martin Luther,Jr. “I have a Dream speech.”Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.,28
August.1963. Address.
Washington,Booker,T. “Atlanta compromise speech.” International Exposition, Atlanta.,18
September.1895.Address.
X,Malcolm. “The ballot or bullet speech.”Cory Methodist Church, Cleveland Ohio.,3
April.1964.Address.
Chappell, Timothy. “Ethics beyond Moral Theory.” Philosophical Investigations 32.3 (2009): 206–243. Web.
References
Chappell, Timothy. “Ethics beyond Moral Theory.” Philosophical Investigations 32.3 (2009): 206–243. Web.
