Dr. Tremblays mooring is basically a classical ethical debate, where the question is asked: do the needs of the few, outweigh the rights of the many? In this skid the many is comprised of 37 babies, and their m new(prenominal)s, namelessly tested for HIV, and the few is an anonymous tyke from the group, suspected of having neonatal HIV. Tremblay hoped to relegate this baby and peddle discourse (as well as giving treatment to the cause), yet in doing so he would violate the right to anonymity that the other thirty-six mothers and babies are legally entitled to. At the break off of the synopsis explaining Dr. Tremblays plight, he has gone ahead and started to give named tests (breaking the anonymity). In this analysis I am trying to bang whether or non Dr. Tremblay was ethically and legally justified in his processs by development three tests: 1) the consequentalist/ useful test, 2) the deontological test, and 3) the Supreme Courts Three-Pronged Test. The utilitarian test, as follows with utilitarianism, is plumb simple: weight the emoluments and the consequences of Dr. Tremblays action - this includes some(prenominal) probably short-term and long-term effects, as well as possible near and distant reaching consequences of such an action. Since Dr.
Tremblay is not directly trying to impairment anyone, and as a doctor, it is uninjured to assume that he has chosen his profession to help people, his action is first and foremost (in his eyes) to benefit the health of the infected baby. Therefore, I will first hear the benefits of his action(s). Obviously, Dr. Tremblay would be able to find the infected baby/mother if ! he is allowed to perform named retests of the thirty-seven babies/mothers. With the named results he will be able to determine which is infected, and support them with treatment. It is... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment