MPH522 - Public Health Law and Policy, Mod 4 Case Assignment - Essay Example

He did challenge this decision in several courts but lost and was ruled against by the Supreme Court (Barnes et al, 1993). We will attempt to show that this decision falls under the utilitarian ethics principle. Utilitarian ethics can be defined over all as a decision that is made as the best decision for the most people. The case is a utilitarian ethics case though it also has the element of paternalism which is deontoligic in nature. In this case, it could only be seen that they were making this decision for the greatest good because it was a decision that ruled against the single person and saw the law in the light of a bigger picture.

The Supreme Court, in this case made a decision that did not agree with the single employee because it would have led to a loss of the ability to protect future employees from injury that they themselves may not protect themselves against. This is the way public health law works. The public, the law, as well as the courts have had some difficulty in determining what justice is when it comes to a case like this one (Kass, 2001). Does this also protect the company? The answer is of course yes.

However, this again is a decision that is made for the largest number, not for the individual. It does not feel right to us because we have a tendency to look for justice in the sense of the single human instead of the group. It is also so easy to see that the company is not only concerned about the employee but that this is a serious illness brewing and if allowed to continue will be a large burden on the resources of the company so in the end the decision is meant to protect the employee, the company and employees of the future.

The second part of the Utilitarian principle is that the decision is extrinsic in its features and that the outcomes of the decision were extrinsic in nature. This is certainly true here. This decision will affect