Ethical Dilemmas Concerning Right-Versus-Right Scenario - Coursework Example

Ethical Dilemmas Introduction Not all situations contain only a ‘right-versus-wrong’ dilemma. This ment proves true to people who live a life of integrity, honesty, and righteous ethical conduct. In fact, these people are always faced with a lot of things to consider before making decisions, as compare to other people who only consider one perspective of a situation that leaves them an easier decision-making process. This happens because having the right perspective in every issue, they weigh issues based on its ethical bearings-- that is, how ‘ethical’ their decision will be, which is also based on their different backgrounds and biases. This paper explores the ethical dilemmas mainly concerning ‘right-versus-right’ scenario not only among issues that entail criminal and legal laws but also in making decisions in our everyday lives. This theme is anchored based on the four outcomes discussed in the class, critical thinking, communication, diversity and ethics. Critical Thinking in Ethical Dilemmas Kidder (2005, p. 17) states, “Right versus right, then, is the heart of our toughest choices.” Situations that abound with this kind of dilemma concern our “most profound and central values,” which require pitting them against each other without boiling down to labeling others as the wrong choice (Kidder, 2005, p. 17). Right versus wrong, on the other hand, is categorically described as a “moral temptation” only and not ethical dilemmas (Kidder, 2005, p. 17). For instance, it is easier to cheat minimally and subtly than suffer from a failing grade because of not attempting to do so. Cheating serves as a moral temptation simply because categorical imperative explains that under any circumstances, cheating is morally wrong. In Psychology, however, Hare (1991 as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000, p. 276) states that it is not enough to base ethical decision on “absolute thinking” and “utilitarian thinking.” Hence, he introduced two aspects of moral reasoning that deal with ethical dilemmas-- “intuitive” and “critical” levels (Hare, 1991 as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000, p. 276). Gutheil, Bursztajn, Brodsky, and Alexander (1991 cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000) also add that in psychiatry and law, a formal decision-making tool is needed in order to synthesize and scrutinize the components involved in a certain situation or issue. Gutheil et al. (1991, p. 41 as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000, p. 276) discuss: “Decision analysis is a step-by-step procedure enabling us to break down a decision into its components, to lay them out in an orderly fashion, and to trace the sequence of events that might follow from choosing one course of action or another... It can help us to make the best possible decision in a given situation. Moreover, it can help us to clarify our values, that is the preferences among possible outcomes by which we judge what the best decision might be.” Ethical dilemmas may take on individual against community concerns, professional code of conduct against community welfare, personal gain versus the welfare of the company, and many more. For instance, medical doctors have sworn over patient confidentiality. As an example, one time, after his patient consultation, a police enforcer approaches a doctor and asks about his patient’s information because that patient is the primary suspect of the latest homicide incident in the area. The doctor faces a terrible situation of responding to the situation he is in. Of course, he is concerned with the victim of the killing, and as a person who values life, upholds legal and due process, he needs to cooperate with the enforcer. On one hand, his professional career made him sworn over patient confidentiality as part of their code of conduct. Reporting the patient’s information is a clear violation of his professional duties and can even terminate him from his job. Apparently, the doctor faces right versus right ethical dilemma. When confronted with situations where both choices have positive and negative consequences, it is best to undergo a decision analysis by weighing the pros and cons, or as what Hundert (1987, p. 839) calls, “reflective equilibrium.” Making decisions in ethical dilemmas is more like gambling. One does not have pleasing choices, therefore, based on the process of your decision analysis, explore more options, and take chances. On the other end, Eberlein (1987) also guides people to prioritize and respect the person’s life and dignity before anything else before thinking the welfare of the society. Based on this idea, the doctor mentioned in the hypothetical situation must refuse to give his patient’s information to the authority. Communication in Ethical Dilemmas Communication is also an important factor in ethical dilemmas. As humans, we all convey messages in our daily lives, which either create or solve the problem. At present, communication has rapidly changed over time due to advances in technology. Consequently, these innovations also rise to a higher notch, the level with which ethical dilemmas occur. Long before sophisticated gadgets flourished in the market, personal communication and real approach to various sources of ethical dilemmas confronted people from all walks of life. In the field of Anthropology, communication that includes interviewing, researching and keeping records means two ethical dilemmas: the “representation of truth” and “confidentiality” (Bresler, 1996, p. 133). Ethnographic processes are usually employed by anthropologists to guide their research studies, and this method is beset by various reasons leading to ethical dilemmas. Bresler (1996, p. 133) enumerates “complexity”, “contextuality”, “social reality”, “subjectivity”, and “interpretation and meaning” as her assumptions. Ethnographic researchers are confronted with ethical issues considering that their field work includes immersion, observation of people’s real activities, including those that are private, and eventually exposing them to a large populace through the publication of the research. In other words, this process alone involves ethical dilemma on the part of the researchers despite the so-called freedom in research. Bresler (1996) stated that a qualitative approach is more preferred than a positivist mechanics in researches that involve peoples lives. This is the situation that involves ethics between the researcher and the research (Bresler, 1996, p. 135). Ethnographic method requires sincerity in the finished product of the research. This means that accuracy in facts must be religiously observed all the time. Subjectivity is not an issue at all if we are going to change perspectives regarding its instilled definition. In communicating research results, it is deliberately done with the researcher’s subjective view and own interpretation of the facts he or she gathered. However, subjectivity should be understood as the way to present ideas and interpretations in the correct way possible albeit personal biases. Diversity in Ethical Dilemmas Varied beliefs, backgrounds, and ethnic affiliations are sometimes important in deciding over an ethical dilemma. In the United States, for instance, a lot of ethical dilemmas in many fields are mostly triggered due to cross-cultural reasons. In a case study conducted by Muller and Desmond (1992), cross-cultural factors affected the imposition of proper treatment to a Chinese patient because of the family’s intervention and representation of the patient on her behalf. In addition, the physician and some medical staff turned out frustrated because a member of the family always refuses any medical interventions to his mother and suggests intubation instead. The Chinese patient could not speak English, and therefore, her children are the ones deciding for her. When the doctors declined the son’s request due to misunderstanding, the son accused the doctor and the hospital of racial discrimination because they are Chinese. In other fields, as well, balancing core values is always a gigantic task. According to Zimmerman, Vitelli, and Hollowell-Zimmer (2003), it is always best to understand the laws and statutes that govern a particular field because when personal biases set in, it is always fair under the law. It is also appropriate to set the limits between personal and professional biases. Rademakers, Mouthaan, and de Neef (2005) state that even in the field of education, ethical dilemmas happen because of colliding cultures. In teaching sexuality education to immigrant children, teachers are always in a dilemma whether or not to exclude Muslim students from joining the class considering the nature of their religious faith. Such a dilemma is hard to solve especially that the teacher is confronted by two equal choices or dilemma. There are already present statutes that govern ethical conduct in cases involving cross-cultures. However, the problem now lies on minute instances that involve dealing with racial differences which are not covered by the law. Cottone and Claus (2000) again explain the importance of knowing what appropriate question is to be asked in situations involving right versus right especially those that concern diversity. For instance, when a certain encounter between a Chinese patient and an American doctor involves an issue of diversity, say justice versus mercy, it is always a must to raise an important question of who started the dilemma. Cottone and Claus (2000) view a certain dilemma as composed of players, and either one of the players has a big part of the surging dilemma. In addition, scrutinizing the problem into tiny pieces is also a great help in solving the problem. No matter how big the dilemma seems to be, it can be reduced into bits. There is a resolution that will occur, a solution that is found in between the two opposing factors. Ethics in Ethical Dilemmas The study of ethics in Philosophy has drawn interests in understanding and solving ethical dilemmas. White (1993) enumerates three important branches of ethics that can serve as a backbone when encountering situations that involve ethical dilemmas. These are philosophical ethics, teleological ethics, and deontological ethics (White, 1993, p. 3). Philosophical ethics is concerned with a rational approach in dealing a situation, which means avoiding personal biases to set in. According to White (1993), other philosophers state that an action only acquires its intrinsic and moral value based on its consequences or outcome. The other perspective of philosophical ethics states that an action has intrinsic value itself even without the actual consequence, such as cheating and stealing. Teleological ethics pertains to the first point of view of philosophical ethics, which is result-oriented, while deontological ethics also pertains to the latter perspective of philosophical ethics. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are among the popular teleological ethicists, while the universal moral law as the umbrella of deontological ethics is proposed by Immanuel Kant (White, 1993). In ethical dilemmas, these two approaches can be used as one’s school of thought and as a guiding principle. When one believes in an objective and rational way of understanding actions, the pleasure and pain principle of Jeremy Bentham can work well. White (1993) explains Bentham’s notion about the moral consequences of an action. In making decisions, one must assess the situation based on the pain or pleasure that it may result, and accordingly, pleasure is what governs people’s lives. Any decision that yields pain is considered unlikely. This is why the principle of utilitarianism is brought up. This school of thought suggests that the consequence of the action must produce the greatest amount of pleasure to a large number of people; meaning, an action is morally right if it benefits the majority. As stated from the beginning of this paper, it is hard to decide on a situation that involves a battle between two rightful choices. However, using the utilitarian principle, one can make the decision-making process easier by choosing the option that benefits the majority. In a study conducted by Miller and Selgelid (2007, p. 524), another variation of ethical dilemma in the biological sciences is called “dual-use dilemma.” This dilemma happens when a particular research has the potential of causing both beneficial and harmful consequences (Miller & Selgelid, 2007, p. 524). The discovery of genetic engineering in order to fight abnormal genes, which cause a lot of pathogens, has serious implications that are both positive and negative. Aside from benefiting the field of medicine, it allows “bioterrorists” to create a new breed of virus which can inflict thousands and even millions of people (Miller & Selgelid, 2007, p. 525). Utilitarian can actually address this dilemma by quantifying the pain and pleasure principle. If the damage costs more than the intended benefit, then genetic engineering probably must stop. A research study called the Tuskegee Syphilis was the main concern of a recent ethical study conducted by Ogungbure (2011). The Tuskegee Syphilis case happened between 1932 and 1972 in Alabama involving a group of African men who were affected by syphilis. A separate group, called the control group, was also composed of African men. The primary aim of the study was to compare the ways in which White Americans and Africans respond to the disease, and to know the duration with which a person can survive syphilis without treatment. Using the deontological approach, the action itself was justifiable because doing research in order to provide solutions to existing biomedical problems is a just cause, although later, there are minor details that say otherwise. The action itself is not condemnable, and in fact, worthy of praises. The consequences, however, was a problem and implied a serious moral issue on the part of the doctors conducting the research. Using the teleological approach, the outcome of the study is not anymore an ethical dilemma because it was perfectly wrong and harmful. The research procedures that the subjects went through made their disease grew worse. Most of them suffered from “extreme neuronal damages,” while others died from lesions, not to mention the infection it brought to those men’s wives (Ogungbure, 2011, p. 78). Furthermore, while scrutinizing the procedures the researchers did, deontological perspective must say that their actions were unethical. The doctors were found to deceive the patients by withdrawing from them their actual disease and condition (Ogungbure, 2011). In other words, they lied to the subjects about their health condition by telling them that they only have a defect in their blood chemistry, and so they were offered a therapy, in which the subjects willfully agreed. The universal moral law labels cheating and lying as morally wrong under any circumstances (White, 1993, p. 7). Ethics has various schools of thought when it comes to facing ethical dilemmas. True enough, these situations entail tough choices which require a thorough understanding about morality, ethics, morally right and wrong, and ethical or unethical. Ethics is grounded on our values as a person who thinks rationally, logically, and morally. When facing ethical dilemmas, ethics guides people to choose the option which has a better impact and has lesser damage compared to the other pleasing alternative choice. Sometimes, it also takes a strong conviction especially in situations that have really competing options that are hard to manage, and thus, taking the risks comes in. Conclusion Right versus right scenario is indeed the toughest ethical dilemma to date. Anthropology, psychology and psychiatry, law, medicine and biological sciences are not exempted from experiencing these dilemmas. There is, of course, always a way to solve our daily ethical dilemmas. Our response to the situation reflects our understanding of moral principles, and says something about our moral and ethical values. Philosophers suggest two main ways in addressing a right versus right dilemma. It includes assessing the risks or benefits of the outcome to a large number of people or evaluates the act itself whether it is intrinsically moral and ethical or not. It is also suggested that we have to undergo decision analysis by weighing the pros and cons of the situation, and that means a careful evaluation of the possible impacts of our decisions to ourselves and to the society. References Bresler, L. (1996). Ethical issues in the conduct and communication of ethnographic classroom research. Studies in Art Education, 37 (3), 133-144. Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 275-283. Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 353-359. Hundert, E. M. (1987). A model for ethical problem-solving in medicine, with practical applications. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 839-846. Kidder, R. M. (2005). How good people make tough choices. Maine: Institute for Global Ethics. Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical considerations of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science Engineering Ethics, 13, 523-580. Muller, J. H., & Desmond, B. (1992). Ethical dilemmas in a cross-cultural context: A chinese example. Cross-cultural Medicine, 157, 323-327. Ogungbure, A. A. (2011). The tuskegee syphilis study: Some ethical reflections. A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya, 3 (2), 75-92. Rademakers, J., Mouthaan, I. & de Neef, M. (2005). Diversity in sexual health: Problems and dilemmas. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 10 (4), 207-211. White, T. (1993). Business ethics: A philosophical reader. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Zimmerman, L. J., Vitelli, K. D., & Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Ethical issues in archaeology. California: Altamira Press. Read More