Resolving dilemma by Applying Ethical Theories: The Case of Gina Kolata - Essay Example

Resolving dilemma by Applying Ethical Theories: The Case of Gina Kolata The article Summary The article by Kolata features an ethical dilemma a pertaining to the experimental practices. Dr. Chinnaiayan looks at the gene sequence printout of a man with cancerous cells. This is the first subject of his studies. Apart from the cancerous cells, the doctor also discerns the presence of genes associated with the causation of the HIV virus. A point rings to the doctor that perhaps the man could be already infected with HIV, a point that would only be proven through further testing. However, there was no allowance for the doctor to disclose his results and thoughts to the person who had made a donation of the cells. The condition for the donation of the cells was that his name would be kept anonymous. The evolution of the world has been accompanied by various developments that have created the allowance for the doctors to use sophisticated tools and techniques in their practices, including in the studies of DNA. The eventuality is that doctors are finding the results that they do not need for their practice. However, these encompass the information that could make a lot of difference if disclosed to the anonymous donors. Then the crucial question pertains to the subject of whether the genetic results should ever be conveyed to the families of the donors. The question also pertains to how, as well as when, these could be effectively done. Doctor Francis Collin acknowledges criticality of the underlying dilemma, commending that the society is living in the era where information obtained from research is so controversial that those who obtain do not know how to use it. Such ethical dilemma persistently present itself year-after-year, as the time not only yield cheaper, but also relatively easy techniques of genome sequencing. Nevertheless, some research findings are often clear. For example, the colon cancer genes would increase the susceptibility of cancer infection for the subjects who inherit it. How significant the genetic changes occur is never clear. Even if this was clear, the information would be useless, considering that little can be done about it. Of particular concern is to use resolve the dilemma using ethical theories. The theories considered hereunder include Bentham and Mill utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology and Aristotle’s virtue of ethics. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism refers to the ethical theory that posits taking an appropriate course of action increases the chances of perfectness and happiness (Mill 34). Its worthiness is based on the consequences of actions. Utilitarianism may be considered as an ethical approach that is quantitative as well as reductionist. It particularly differs from other ethical theories such as deontological ethics, virtue ethics, pragmatic ethics and other consequantialism approaches. Utilitarianism posits that when an individual encounters a situation which requires him to come up with a choice, he should first hold back, weigh the situation based on appropriate choices before him, putting into the consideration the consequences of each choice. Upon ascertaining that the choice that would yield the pleasurable outcomes, one can then proceeds to take the action. Besides, as far as rule utilitarian is concerned, when faced with a situation that calls for decision, one must first consider the consequences of following the available rules, for example, the law. Upon establishing that following the rules would lead to pleasurable outcome, one should proceed to take the course of action. As far as the utility test is concerned, the first step entails identification of alternative actions and enlists consequences for people who are to be affected by the action (Brooke, 2009). In this case, some of the potential consequences are a breach of the agreements for donations and improvement for the wellbeing of the donors and their families. The second step entails weighing the costs and benefits of the affected groups for each possible alternative. The prediction may base on probability of outcomes and give consideration to long-term and short-term consequences as well as relative results to various groups. The third step entails selecting the option that is likely to result in the most desirable outcome, that is, the greatest benefit to all those who are likely to be affected by the situation. In this case, the action with desirable outcome is to inform people about their health outcomes. If the potential outcomes are undesirable, there is always the need to reconsider the action. The fourth step entails questioning oneself what the outcome would have been if this particular choice of action had been a policy for all subsequent courses of action in similar situations. The last stage is drawing the conclusion and taking the course of action. The desirable action becomes disclosing the experimental outcomes to the people involved. Aristotle’s Virtue of ethics Aristotle’s virtue of ethics is that which oriented towards the ensuring that the outcomes are happiness and fulfillment of the human interests. Based on Aristotle’s approach, any good has a characteristic function to which they are purposed. The approach considers the end goals of human activities as seeking happiness. However, what grants happiness as the end result is somewhat uncertain, considering that even actions that are considered desirable, such as education and wealth, do not necessarily result in happiness. Aristotle’s approach proposes that action or objects that should be considered as being good should be a facilitator of the entire human life and its events. Moreover, it is always imperative that these should reflect the interests of the inner soul and this pertains to virtues. As far as this issue is concerned, the question is whether resorting to disclose the information to the anonymous persons would be a reflection of what Aristotle’s approach articulates. Aristotle’s virtues must be oriented towards ethics, which are characterized by what the society considers as acceptable. Sticking by Aristotle’s virtues of ethics is to imply that no information disclosure should be done (Manuel, Claire, Shanks & Meyer, 2011). Kant’s Deontology In his moral philosophy, Kant asserted that morality can only be defined based on rationality standard, which he labeled categorical imperative. In this sense, immorality is characterized by the violation of the categorical imperatives; thus, may also be blamed on irrationality. Kant had been preceded by other philosophers, such as Hobbes and Locke, who had also stood for the philosophy that rationality was the basis of morality. Yet, the rational standards were guided by intuitions or desire. In most cases, people do what is right because they aspire to reward. In cases where reward is unexpected, institution becomes the norm. Kant would not dismiss this point, but added that practical reason analyses had the potential of revealing only there requirements that rational agents ought to align with the categorical imperatives. As far as this case is concerned, of particular concern is to align the alternatives with the categorical imperatives. Aligning with the categorical imperative implies that the doctors should stick to the compliance to the nondisclosure of the information to the anonymous donors. Conclusion The most appealing approach is Bentham and Mill utilitarianism. This is because it is flexible in the sense that it reflects the rule of law, as well as justice. Additionally, it offers a description to the steps that should be taken to realize what should constitute desirable outcomes. Work Cited Brooke, Hart. Utility test: Are we minimizing harm and maximizing good for those affected? 2009. Web. December 17, 2012. Gina, Kolata. Genes Now Tell doctors Secretes they Can’t Utter. Manuel, Shanks. The utilitarian approach to ethics: Calculating consequences. 2011. Web. December 17, 2012. Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1906. Print. Read More