Moral Dilemma of the Death of a Young Boy in Panama City - Essay Example

Moral Dilemma There are moments in our lives when we are plunged into situations wherein there never seem to be a way out. That whatever decision we make, whatever we choose, we seem to never make a good choice at all because whichever way, the effect is negative. We seem to hurt others and ourselves no matter how careful the choice had been drawn. Due to the fact that we want the best thing to come out, making a decision becomes a hard task. Particularly if you are an emotional person or someone with high regard to what is called a moral responsibility or our responsibility to the welfare of our fellow. We don't want to be compelled to believe that our choices are bad. This is then that we are caught in a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas are considered dilemmas because of certain kind of conflict between the rightness or wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions. If doing what is morally right results in something bad or if doing what is morally wrong results in something good, the force of moral obligation may seem balanced by the reality of the good end. We can have the satisfaction of being right, regardless of the damage done, or we can aim for what seems to be the best outcome, regardless of what wrongs must be committed (Ross, 2005). An unthinkable dilemma could be observed in William Styron's novel Sophie's Choice wherein Sophie had to make a choice which among her two children should she give up to the Nazi doctor. She had to make a choice in order to save one of them, or else both will be killed. This is such an impossible dilemma for a mother who loves her children so much. Whichever child she chooses, she would end up with negative consequence, that is losing one of her precious children. Sophie did make a choice because she wanted to keep at least one of them, only to find out that in the end, none would be left to her. Like Sophie, we may be faced with similar situations, though not as worse. Just like practicing the so-called white lies, a person thinks that if he uses that for good, the end would also be good because human tends to go for the positive results no matter what the means may be. But there are cases when we should accept the bad consequences because we ought to do something right. It's either we choose to do what is right and suffer the consequence or do wrong to achieve our desired outcome. Life situations, though, sometimes leave us with no choice. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the person is required to do each of the two (or more) actions, the person can do each of the actions, but the person cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The person thus seems condemned to moral failure, no matter what he does, he will do something wrong (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). This will then lead to believing that no matter choice the person makes, it will always result in a negative outcome. It's reality that we can be caught in situations which our moral judgment will be tested. Let's take the case of the death of a young boy in Panama City, Florida based on the story reported by Court TV News last October 10, 2007. Martin Lee Anderson was sent to a juvenile camp after caught joyriding in his grandmother's car. Florida prosecutors allege that Schmidt and seven drill instructors caused 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson's death from suffocation and ammonia inhalation, through their "actions and inactions," during a physical altercation with him on his first day at boot camp. Schmidt - along with drill instructors Henry Dickens, Charles Enfinger, Patrick Garrett, Raymond Hauck, Charles Helms Jr., Henry McFadden Jr., and Joseph Walsh - face up to 30 years in prison if convicted of aggravated manslaughter for the teen's death. In surveillance-camera footage of the incident, which occurred on Jan. 6, 2006, the seven drill instructors are seen manhandling the teen and holding ammonia capsules in his face as he wobbles on his legs. Three of Schmidt's co-defendants have testified that they responded in a manner consistent with their training and the policies of the camp. Schmidt stands out in the video as she circles the group, occasionally stooping down to take his pulse or listen for his heart beat with a stethoscope. Schmidt testified that she was called onto the drill field to observe the teen after he told drill instructors he could not breathe and refused to complete a mandatory 1.5-mile run. She said she did not detect any labored breathing, wheezing or other indications of problems in his lungs. When she asked him where he was born, Schmidt said, the teen made eye contact with her and correctly responded "Panama City" without slurring his speech. Schmidt said he was thinking clearly and breathing fine and she did noticed any signs of health problem. Lawyers for the defendants, all between 30 and 60 years of age, claim that Schmidt was unable to find signs of respiratory distress because the teen was actually suffering from complications of sickle-cell trait, a genetic disorder that impedes the flow of oxygen to the muscles. Schmidt admitted that she was unfamiliar with sickle-cell trait or sickle-cell disease, a more advanced form of the disorder, a fact that her lawyer claims rendered her unable to anticipate Anderson's medical needs. Before jurors begin deliberating, the trial judge will instruct them that they must consider whether the nurse and guards acted with "reckless disregard" and whether Anderson's death was a "foreseeable" consequence of their actions. Medical experts who testified for the prosecution last week acknowledged that sickle-cell trait aggravated Anderson's condition. But they insisted that the guards' actions triggered a fatal cycle of oxygen deprivation, leading to Anderson's death. The defendants, who did not know of Anderson's condition, claim that had he checked off a box for sickle-cell on his medical history form, he would not have been admitted into the program. Throughout the encounter, Schmidt said Anderson's breathing and pulse remained at a consistent normal level, leading her to believe he might be faking, which was typical for offenders in their first day at boot camp. Even after Anderson became unconscious and was taken to the Bay County Medical Center, Schmidt said she was still bewildered by the cause of his collapse. He died in a Pensacola hospital the next morning, after his parents told doctors to take him off life support. The seven drill instructors and the nurse however were acquitted. If I was going to assess the situation, I can say that we have a genuine moral dilemma since conflict is present. The dilemma here is that the drill instructors did what they ought to do relevant to their post but they were thrown into circumstance which made them villains in the eyes of the people. The drill instructors obviously didn't know about Anderson's condition for the simple fact that there weren't any manifestations of any health problem in him. Sickle-cell trait is in his gene which doesn't commonly give any health disorder. Since they weren't aware of his medical backgrounds, they made him smell ammonia to relieve him back to consciousness which could have been a right practice if not of his condition. For Anderson's case however was different. The hike consumes much oxygen in his body thus he was grasping for breath which eventually led to collapse. The nurse on the other hand should have known better of the condition and she must have suspected that Anderson was already suffocating due to the action of the drill instructors. She must also have acted against the beating that was done in front of her. Due to her inaction on the situation, she also committed something that is morally wrong. Maybe Anderson and his parent were not totally aware of the sickle-cell trait, the reason why they just allowed him to be admitted in the camp without asking for any special treatment. Sickle-cell trait is common among African-American but generally does not cause them any health disorder. If I were to take the stance of the drill instructors, I would say that they just actually did the right thing. First, they were there to instruct and to accompany the offenders in their exercise drill which wad a 1.5 mile hike. Second, when they noticed that Anderson was collapsing, thinking that he was just faking it, they kicked him. This may be just a sort of disciplinary action for the part of the drill instructors. Third, they made him smell ammonia. There was nothing wrong with that because that's the basic first aid for fainting spells, however, it triggered suffocation. In the end, they had to take the blame for what happened. In some ways, they were just functioning as they should but since they were the persons immediate to the scene, they were also the ones considered as perpetrators of the crime. There was no way they can evade the charge, for the time it happened, Anderson was in their custody thus they are accountable for what happened. They were in the situation wherein they did a right thing but the result was negative. It shows an obvious dilemma. The acquittal of the seven drill instructors and the nurse invoked a racist issue. Since Anderson is an African-American there seem to be not enough consideration was given to the case and the verdict was done with haste. It was unjust of them not to examine it thoroughly and for a case which cost a life; the decision was deliberated in less than two hours "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens," was the famous line of lawyer Benjamin Crump in referring to the callous and quick verdict of the jury. We should just always remember that we are entitled of all our actions. Therefore, as much as possible let us guard our actions and try to adhere to what is morally right. In such way, we can be saved form whatever confrontations that would bring guilt feelings. Let us always weigh the consequences of all our actions before doing them. But if that can't be possible, let us be strong enough to face the confrontations that may follow. Bibliography Court TV News (last updated October 10, 2007). Boot camp nurse testifies young offender who died showed no signs of medical distress. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from http://www.courttv.com/trials/anderson/100907_ctv.html#storycont%20COURTv%20NEWS Ross, K.L. Ph.D. (2005). Generalized Structure of Ethical Dilemmas from http://www.friesian.com/dilemma.htm Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (last updated May 16, 2006). Moral Dilemmas. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/#Exa Read More