Dr. Tremblays mooring is basically a classical ethical debate, where the inquire is asked: do the needs of the few, outweigh the rights of the many? In this drive the many is comprised of 37 babies, and their mformer(a)s, namelessly tested for HIV, and the few is an anonymous despoil from the group, suspected of having neonatal HIV. Tremblay hoped to relegate this baby and peddle intercession (as well as giving treatment to the experience), 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 fetch up 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 employ three tests: 1) the consequentalist/ useful test, 2) the deontological test, and 3) the Supreme Courts Three-Pronged Test. The utilitarian t est, as follows with utilitarianism, is plumb simple: weight the benefits and the consequences of Dr. Tremblays action - this includes some(prenominal) probably short-term and long-run effects, as well as possible near and furthermost reaching consequences of such an action. Since Dr. Tremblay is not directly trying to distress 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 break down 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: O rderCustomPaper.com
If you want! to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment