Transcript Professional Ethics - Txstate

Professional Ethics
Dr. Charles Hinkley
Greetings Students,
Welcome to Professional Ethics! Virtually everyone has some idea
about what it means to be ethical and what it means to be a professional.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice.
The professions are honored and authoritative occupations
devoted to the public good. Such professions include law, medicine,
engineering, teaching, the ministry, politics, business, and journalism.
Professional ethics, then, covers a broad range of moral issues
related to the duties of professionals such as doctors and nurses, attorneys
and judges, business leaders, politicians, and other professionals and the
institutions and systems which shape the professions.
In this course, we will focus on law, business, and politics. We have
a good array of subjects to analyze, and I look forward to learning from the
books and our discussions.
Sincerely,
Dr. Charles Hinkley
Syllabus
Instructor: Dr. Charles Hinkley
Office hours: Psychology Bldg. Rm. 134 TTh 10:00-11:00 and by appointment
Required Textbooks:
Luizzi, Vincent, A Case for Legal Ethics: Legal Ethics As a Source for a Universal Ethic, SUNY Press, 1993.
Zitrin, Richard and Carol M. Langford, The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer, Ballantine Books, 1999.
Course Description:
Philosophy is the intelligent exploration of life’s most profound questions. Ethics is a branch of philosophy
that addresses the nature of moral goodness, virtue and vice, good and evil, and right and wrong. Ethics is not
merely a disinterested search for moral truths but an honest and often passionate quest to live well in a
complex and changing world. Professional ethics focuses on the moral duties and virtues of professionals;
traditionally, physicians and nurses, attorneys, and people in business. Today, professional ethics has
expanded into many other fields and most companies have ethics policies covering such topics as sexual
harassment, discrimination, confidentiality, and informed consent. We will focus on business, legal, and
political ethics.
Objectives:
By the end of this course, you will have achieved three important goals. First, you will be conversant about
the major schools of ethical thought and how they might apply to concrete situations. Second, you will
become a better thinker and writer. Becoming a more logical person involves clarifying words, phrases,
statements, and questions and understanding the fundamentals of inductive and deductive logic and fallacious
thinking. Moreover, specific instructions will be provided to improve students’ sentence structure, rhetoric,
and defense of a thesis. Third, you will gain insights about your beliefs, values, doubts, and limitations.
Specifically, you will better judge your level of knowledge, more intelligently interpret your moral
experiences, and better recognize sources of conflict and resolutions to conflict. It is clear that although we
will focus on professional ethics, the concepts that we learn apply to other facets of life.
Assignments and Grading:
Students are required to write two 4-5 page essays, each worth 100 points. The final exam will be an “inclass” essay worth 100 points. Class participation is expected. Students who contribute to class discussions
impressively can receive 10 additional points towards their final grade. Grades will not be curved, and there
will be no extra credit assignments. Any student found guilty of academic dishonesty will receive an “F” for
the course.
A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: 50-59
Attendance:
Attendance is required. Absences will be considered unexcused without sufficient reason (illness, funeral,
university-sanctioned event, etc.) presented by the student. Students with more than two unexcused absences
will have their final grade dropped one letter.
Schedule:
Assignments will be posted at the beginning of each class time. Generally, we will read one chapter for each class.
Professionalism
What are the characteristics
of a professional?
1) Expertise
Professionals such as physicians and attorneys
have specialized knowledge that requires
several years of study and training.
Professionals usually excel in academics, are
among the few accepted into advanced
professional academic programs, and must pass
rigorous exams to be licensed practitioners.
2) Honor and Prestige
Concomitant with their expertise, professionals
often hold prestigious and privileged offices
that command respect.
3) Autonomy
Autonomy means having the ability and
authority to make choices. The public regards
professionals as experts; thus they have a high
degree of autonomy at the workplace. In other
words, professionals have a great degree of
decision-making power.
4) Public Good
Professionals serve an important social role in
making a good society. Ideally, attorneys are
dedicated to justice; physicians to health;
teachers to education; journalists to truth, and so
forth. Although it is acceptable for professionals
to sell their services, the virtuous professional is
dedicated to serving an important social role
and to realizing or furthering the goal of that
profession.
Questions
What characteristics would you add to the meaning of a professional?
Although not everyone at the workplace is a professional, professional
conduct is expected from all employees in many organizations. Do
you think discussing personal matters (e.g. family issues, or dating
habits) is appropriate at work?
To what extent should supervisors and managers be friends with subordinates
and other managers and supervisors? Is it appropriate to have drinks after
work with other employees?
What should be expected from all employees at office parties?
Business
Globalization
Globalization refers to the increasing financial and
cultural interconnectedness among nations and societies.
The benefits of globalization include more opportunities
for trade and investment. The burdens include
outsourcing, the economic exploitation of third-world
citizens, and the homogenization of culture.
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on property rights.
In capitalist societies individuals have a right to own and
profit from owning private property. So, in capitalist
societies individuals have the right to own businesses and
natural resources (e.g. land). In Marxist terms, capital is the
means of production such as businesses that produce goods
and services. Capitalist systems are also known as freemarket economies. A capitalist system opposes the
government ownership of industry. Capitalism is known for
providing individuals with opportunities to gain wealth but
with also being exploitive.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism
Adam Smith is the intellectual father of laissez-faire capitalism.
Smith believed that governments should not intervene too much
in the economy, and that people should have the right to embark
on and profit from their own ideas and endeavors. Smith
believed that people are naturally egoistic or self interested and
acquisitive. We want to gain wealth. Smith envisions a society
where people will meet their own needs and the needs of others
if governments do not impede people from profiting from their
work. The idea is that intelligent, industrious people will
develop goods and services that satisfy people’s needs and
desires. This system does not need government intervention, but
is guided by the invisible hand of supply and demand.
Communism
Karl Marx is the intellectual father of communism. Marx was writing
in the mid to late 19th century where he witnessed the capitalist
exploitation of wage earners around the world. According to Marx,
capitalism is an oppressive system, because capitalists exploit their
workers by providing meager wages and benefits and taking the
lion’s share of the profits for themselves. Marx also believed that
capitalism was inefficient with its boom and bust cycle. This problem
is exemplified by stock market rises and crashes. For Marx, workers
(the proletarians) should seize private property through revolution;
property is to be communally owned. Communists believe that the
government should be more proactive in planning economic
development, rather than relying on free enterprise to meet needs.
Communist societies are known for a more egalitarian distribution of
wealth but also for limiting opportunities and for being authoritarian.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory is one of the great traditions of
political philosophy in Great Britain and the United States.
The idea is that political authority must be justified. Social
contract theorists believe that for a government to be
legitimate, the citizens must consent to be governed. In other
words, there must be a social contract between those who
govern and those who are governed. The key question is, to
what are citizens consenting? Different theorists answer this
question differently. Thomas Hobbes believed citizens
consent to a powerful government in exchange for security.
John Locke, however, argued that governments must protect
natural rights. Other notable social contract theorists include
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls.
Distributive Justice
The issue of distributive justice pertains to how a
society’s wealth should be distributed. Some people
believe that people are entitled to whatever they
rightfully (i.e. without theft or violating people’s rights)
gain in a free-market economy. Given the enormous
disparity in wealth, others believe that the government
should play a role in redistributing wealth. Wealth can
be redistributed through taxation, raising the minimum
wage, and welfare programs.
Social Responsibility
Today, businesses are asked and pressured to be
socially responsible. There is even a niche in personal
finance known as socially responsible investing. A
socially responsible business should attempt not to
harm the environment and should have a record of
treating its workers well. Socially responsible mutual
funds might also divest of tobacco companies or
corporations that use child labor.
McCain-Feingold
This bill sets out to reform campaign finance by placing
limits on “soft money”—money from corporations, labor
unions, and wealthy individuals. The bill prohibits national
political parties from receiving unlimited contributions for
support of national elections. The bill requires more
disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. The
bill also seeks to limit ads financed by corporations and
unions that are disguised to support particular candidates.
Finally, the bill would strengthen laws prohibiting foreign
nationals from financially contributing to elections.
Pork-Barrel Politics
Pork barrel politics refers to congressional
representatives using federal funds or manipulating
legislation for their own constituents at the expense
of the nation’s interest. When bills are proposed
politicians often will only support the legislation if
something is added to the bill that serves their interest
or their constituents’ interest.
Keynesian Economics
John Maynard Keynes believed that a mixed economy is
best. That is, free enterprise in combination with
government intervention is needed. Remember that
capitalism is characterized by a boom and bust cycle.
During an economic downturn businesses typically institute
layoffs and hiring freezes. To combat rampant
unemployment, Keynes recommended government
spending on programs, even if that meant creating a deficit.
Those interested in balancing the federal budget will find
Keynesianism difficult to accept.
Supply-Side Economics
Supply-side economics is also known as “trickle-down”
theory. The idea is that the government provides tax breaks
for the wealthiest Americans to boost the economy. Why?
Because the rich will then have more money to develop new
businesses, expand or renovate old businesses, and invest in
new technologies. These entrepreneurial endeavors will
create new jobs so everyone in society ultimately benefits.
By embarking on new projects the wealth will trickle down
to middle and lower class Americans. Critics claim that the
middle and lower classes are not likely to benefit from such
tax breaks.
Monetarism
Monetarism is an economic philosophy developed by
Milton Friedman. Friedman believed that governmental
interventions, especially involving the supply of money, did
more harm than good. Other economist had thought that
more needed to be introduced into the economy, because the
wealthy were saving their money instead of embarking on
new ventures that helped everyone. Friedman believed that
market forces would eventually improve the economy. The
supply of money should be held constant unless it is
introduced to keep pace with the natural growth of the
economy. We can’t just print more money to combat
poverty; that just leads to inflation (rising prices).
Doing/Allowing
The doing/allowing distinction is a fundamental concept of
ethics that is relevant to medical, legal, and political issues. The
heart of this distinction is this: all other things being equal,
doing harm is worse than allowing harm. An application of this
principle is that people can be held legally liable for harming
others but not for failing to help, unless their job requires them
to help in some capacity (e.g. a doctor is required to help his or
her patients). This concept is relevant in the light of Margaret
Thatcher’s claim that, “You are not doing anything against the
poor by seeing that the top people are paid well”(p.23). The idea
is that it might be true that government and business are not
helping the poor, but they are not harming them. The moral and
legal significance of the doing/allowing distinction is debatable.
Self Interest
Great philosophers such as Plato, David Hume,
Thomas Hobbes, and many others have claimed that
people’s self interest is a fundamental moral and
political problem. The fear is that people will attempt
to satisfy their own interest at the expense of others.
Hobbes and Adam Smith believed that it is human
nature to be selfish. Even when philosophers believe
that genuine altruism is possible, there is still the
problem that many people will mistreat others for
their own gain.
World Trade Organization (WTO)
The WTO is an international organization that regulates
trade between nations. The WTO attempts to foster free
enterprise by eliminating or limiting taxes, tariffs, and
laws that impede trade. Supporters of the WTO argue that
free trade benefits all countries involved. Critics claim
that the WTO’s purpose is to advance the interests of
multinational corporations. Consequently, they claim that
the WTO undermines human rights, labor interests, and
environmental interests. Why? Because laws that protect
rights, the poor, and the environment are often regarded
as anti-business.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
NAFTA is an agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the
United State to remove barriers to trade. Like the WTO, the
goal was to foster business. The hope was that NAFTA would
create jobs, raise living standards, protect the environment, and
transform Mexico from a third-world country into a new market
for American and Canadian exports. Critics say that NAFTA
isn’t so much a trade agreement as it is an investment
agreement. Critics maintain that the pursuit of profits has
resulted in relaxing laws and regulations that protect our food
supply, environment, and our jobs. The bottom line is that
foreign investors now have more incentive to relocate factories
and to privatize public goods such as energy and healthcare.
Questions
What does Hertz means by the “silent takeover”?
Do you believe corporations have too much power?
Should the minimum wage be raised? If so, by how much?
Should citizens be entitled to a living wage?
Why do you think fewer than half of American citizens vote in national elections?
Tort Reform
What is tort?
What is a civil wrong?
What is tort reform?
What is a contingency fee?
What are the reasons for defending tort reform?
What are the reasons for opposing tort reform?
What changes have been proposed?
What is a tort?
A tort is a civil wrong where a person seeks
compensation for damages from a person or
corporation alleged to have caused the damage. The
tort system refers to the judicial process related to
compensating victims who suffer injuries from
various accidents such as automobile collisions and
medical malpractice.
What is a civil wrong?
Civil law involves the judicial resolution of a claim by one person
against another person. Civil law is codified by the legislature. In civil
proceedings the judge’s role is to apply the existing laws to the facts
of the case; the judge does not have an opportunity to interpret the
law. In these cases, a judge is not bound by precedents set forth by
other judges because in these cases the judges do not make the law
according to their own interpretation. Instead, these judges are bound
by the existing statutes. The civil law was developed to limit the
power of the judicial branch of government. Civil law is contrasted
with the criminal law where the state prosecutes a person for criminal
conduct. The standards of evidence to prove a case differs in civil and
criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings a case must be proven by
the preponderance of the evidence, whereas in criminal proceeding a
case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is tort reform?
Tort reform refers to proposals to limit the number of
lawsuits and the monetary amount a victim can
receive for damages.
What is a contingency fee?
If something is contingent is means that it depends. So,
a contingency fee means that the client pays the attorney
a fee depending on whether the case is won and the
settlement. In this situation, the plaintiff’s attorney must
bear the financial cost of preparing the case.
What are the reasons
defending tort reform?
The current tort system encourages lawsuits, because
lawyers and victims are hoping for huge settlements.
Suits against doctors are escalating the cost of medical
malpractice insurance, thereby driving some doctors out
of medical practice.
What are the reasons
opposing tort reform?
Victims of accidents deserve to be compensated
for damages.
The threat of lawsuits provides an incentive to
avoid causing harm to others.
What changes have been proposed?
Limit non-economic damages (damages for pain and
suffering) to $250,000.
Limit attorney fees. The suggestion is that the larger the
compensation award, the less of a percentage the attorney
should receive.
Allow members of the jury to consider benefits that
victims have received through their insurance policies.
Require awards over $50,000 to be made in payments.
Questions
In general, do you support or oppose tort reform? Clarify your reasons.
Why do Zitrin and Langford oppose tort reform?
What should be done with attorneys like Sam Hammond?
Sexual Harassment
What is sexual harassment?
What criteria are used to judge whether
conduct constitutes sexual harassment?
What laws pertain to sexual harassment?
What is Texas State University’s policy on
sexual harassment?
Why does sexual harassment occur?
Could your conduct be interpreted as sexual
harassment?
What should you do if you believe that you are
being sexually harassed?
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment usually involves unwanted
verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature that
interferes with a person’s ability to perform his or her
work. Sexual harassment can be a single severe
incident or a series of incidents that accumulate to
create a hostile environment. In a legal sense, sexual
harassment means conduct that discriminates against a
person on the basis of gender whether or not the
discriminatory conduct is of a sexual nature.
Quid pro quo sexual harassment involves an
offer of something for something. In these cases a
person guilty of sexual harassment offers some
benefit such as a position of employment, pay
raise, promotion, or better working conditions in
exchange for a sexual favor.
Hostile environment harassment involves
sexual conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive work environment that interferes with
a person’s job performance.
What criteria are used to judge whether
conduct constitutes sexual harassment?
The subjective test for sexual harassment
includes the idea that the alleged victim of harassment
in fact feels that his or her working conditions have
been adversely affected by the behavior.
The objective test for sexual harassment is
whether conduct adversely affects conditions of
employment. Since people often disagree as to what
constitutes sexual harassment a common standard is
needed to guide employees, employers, and judges. It
is natural to ask whether a reasonable person would
find such conduct as sexual harassment, but some
critics say that men and women tend to view
harassment differently and that the reasonable person
standard is really a reasonable man standard. To avoid
applying a reasonable man or a reasonable woman
standard, some have begun to use a reasonable victim
standard of judgment.
What laws pertain to
sexual harassment?
Title V11 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
Title 1X of the 1972 Education Amendments are
understood to prohibit sexual harassment at work
and school. Thus, sexual harassment is considered
a violation of the victim’s civil rights. The Equal
Employment opportunity commission drafted
guidelines describing employers’ obligations to
prevent and stop sexual harassment.
What is Texas State University’s
policy on sexual harassment?
Texas State University defines sexual harassment as
“unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”
that is the basis of a condition of employment or academic
decisions. Sexual harassment includes behavior such as
repeated and unwanted requests for dates, sexual flirtation,
sexual statements or questions about a person’s clothes,
body, or sexual activities, subtle pressure for a sexual
relationship, unnecessary touching, direct or implied
threats, leering, physical assaults, or a pattern that causes
humiliation or discomfort.
Why does sexual harassment occur?
There are three models for understanding sexual harassment.

The biological model contends that sexual harassment is a natural
outcome of people seeking sexual relations. Although seeking sexual
relations is natural, sexual harassment is the inappropriate attempt to find
sexual gratification.

The socio-cultural model asserts that sexual harassment is part of
patriarchal society in which men seek to dominate women. This model is
consistent with research that shows harassers are typically men and
victims typically women.

The organizational model claims that harassment is a result of
hierarchical institutions. There are asymmetrical power relationships
within organizations that provides the avenues for individuals to extort
sexual relations with their subordinates.
Could your conduct be interpreted
as sexual harassment?
You should ask yourself three questions. First,
would want our spouse or lover to be aware of our
conduct? Second, would you want your conduct to
become public? Third, is your conduct necessary for
conducting business? Err on the side of caution.
What should you do if you believe
that you are being sexually harassed?
Different situations call for different solutions.
There are, however, guidelines to follow. It might be
appropriate to communicate to the perpetrator that you do
not find his or her conduct appropriate and that such
conduct makes you feel uncomfortable. You might also
seek to limit your conduct with the perpetrator.
If the harassment continues or the perpetrator denies
the harassment, it might be appropriate to suggest a
meeting with a supervisor or individuals within the human
resources department. Legal counsel might be needed. The
more accurately you document the offenses, the more
likely the situation will be resolved in your favor.
Questions
Is it ever appropriate to tell jokes of a sexual nature at work?
Is it ever appropriate to compliment a person at work on his or her appearance?
Is it ever appropriate to discuss one’s relationships or sexual history at work?
Is it ever appropriate to date someone at work?
If employees engage in a lover’s quarrel while at work, how should the
immediate supervisor address the situation?
Ethics
What are the major
theories of ethics?
1) Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics focuses on what it takes to be a good
person, on character development, on virtue and
vice. Plato and Aristotle advanced views on virtue
ethics by focusing on improving the soul and
cultivating the right attitudes and habits. For
Aristotle, at least, the good life is the life of the
excellent person. Aristotle believed that the
excellent person lives moderately. In other words,
being immoral means going to extremes.
Golden Mean
Aristotle is known for the concept of the golden
mean in which he states that virtue is found
between two vices, a vice of excess and a vice of
deficiency. For example, courage is a virtue found
between cowardice (the deficiency) and
foolhardiness (the excess). The virtue of
friendliness is found between the vice of
unfriendliness and being a sycophant.
Habituation
According to Aristotle, we learn to be virtuous
through the practice of correct behavior
(habituation) from people who are excellent,
the virtuous role models. We must develop
virtuous habits. A challenge to virtue ethics is
that virtuous people still might disagree as to
what constitutes virtuous conduct in
complicated matters such as cloning, terrorism,
abortion, and other controversial social issues.
2) Deontology
Deontological ethics focuses on what makes an action
the right thing to do. Deontologists such as Immanuel
Kant and William David Ross argue that right action is
determined by the inherent nature of the action, rather
than the consequences of the action. This means that
right action is not determined by what happens after
the action is performed but by the intrinsic qualities of
the action. For Kant, a morally right action
demonstrates respect for persons and is universally
(always) true. For Ross, duties have exceptions.
Categorical imperative
“Categorical” means true for a whole category or
without exception. An imperative is a command
or a claim about what ought to be done. Hence,
the categorical imperative is a claim that some
actions ought to be done without exception. Kant
is famous for his two versions of the categorical
imperative. Kant is often criticized for being an
absolutist in that moral principles are universally
true and that we should never make exceptions to
these principles to suit our interests.
1st formulation of the
categorical imperative
Kant states that persons should follow maxims
(principles) that a person should will to be a
universal law. This means that we should conduct
ourselves in accordance with principles that we
would want everyone to follow. For Kant,
immorality means having one set of rules for
ourselves and another set for others. When we are
wondering what we should do, we should ask
ourselves what we would want everyone else to do.
2nd formulation of the
categorical imperative
Kant states that we should never treat a person as
merely a means to an end; people are ends-inthemselves. Kant claims people should never be
treated as mere instruments to suit our purposes.
No one should be treated or used as merely a thing.
Ross’s Pluralism
For Ross, there is more than one moral principle.
A morally right action abides by a moral principle
such as keeping a promise or treating people
fairly. Ross is famous for thinking that moral
principles can conflict. Therefore, there are cases
where we cannot do everything that is moral.
Prima facie duties
In cases of conflicting moral principles, each
principle is true prima facie but only one principle
in each case can be our duty proper. A prima
facie principle is one that we should ordinarily
follow but one that can be overridden in some
circumstances. The duty proper is the prima facie
principle that is the overriding principle for a
particular situation. It can, however, be difficult to
determine what is right.
Intuitionism
Ross is described as advocating intuitionism
because he believes good persons will have an
intuition (an instinct) about what is the right thing
to do. Ross is widely criticized because people
often have different intuitions about what is right
and wrong.
3) Utilitarianism
Utilitarian ethics also focuses on what makes an action
right. Unlike deontologists, utilitarians argue that the
right action is the one that results in the best
consequences. Utilitarianism is the view that we should
promote the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. Some utilitarians (Bentham) believe that pleasure
is the good that should be maximized, while others (Mill)
believe that happiness should be maximized and that
there are higher and lower pleasures. Contemporary
utilitarians can also be pluralists in the sense that there is
more than one intrinsic good.
Act & Rule Utilitarianism
Utilitarians disagree as to whether we should try to
do the greatest good for the greatest number in every
situation (act utilitarianism) or if we should try to
follow rules that usually result in the greatest good
for the greatest number (rule utilitarianism). The
problem with act utilitarianism is that it seems to
allow for the sacrifice of individuals for the greater
good in some situations. The problem with rule
utilitarianism is that it seems that we should
sometimes make exceptions to rules.
4) Care Ethics
Care ethics focuses on developing and maintaining
caring relationships. Care ethicists emphasize the need to
find inclusive (win-win) solutions to moral conflicts.
Care ethicists also emphasize that we have stronger
obligations to those with whom we have caring
relationships. We have personal obligations to friends
and family members but we also have impersonal
obligations to strangers. Because care is important,
healthy emotions have a more pivotal role in care ethics
than in other ethical theories. One challenge for care
ethicists is to prove that care can be the foundation for
ethics in a world that is often impersonal.
Questions
Which theory do you think will be most relevant for discussing ethical issues
that arise in the context of medical, legal, business, and political professionals?
Do you expect any difficulties in applying ethical theories to practice?
Are we supposed to be able to resolve all ethical conflicts?
Are we all supposed to agree as to how to resolve an ethical conflict?
If people disagree as to whether conduct is unethical, how can we
discover the right answer? If we cannot always discover right answers,
how are we supposed to respond to ethical conflicts?
Confidentiality
What is confidentiality?
What is the moral basis of confidentiality?
Are there legitimate exceptions to upholding
confidentiality?
What is a fiduciary relationship?
What is confidentiality?
Confidentiality—Confidentiality involves the
protection of information regarded as private for
interpersonal or professional reasons. Confidential
information is often intimate, embarrassing, and
potentially damaging. There are deontological and
utilitarian reasons why information disclosed to
professionals in their official capacity should be
regarded as confidential.
What is the moral basis of
confidentiality?
Deontology & Confidentiality—Deontologists believe that
confidentiality should be maintained because it is
inherently right to do so. A breach of confidentiality
shows a lack of respect for persons by violating trust. A
Kantian approach would say that violating confidentiality
cannot be universalized and that the person’s confidence
breached has been used as merely a means for the end of
gaining information. Information disclosed between client
and attorney involves an implicit or explicit contract not
to divulge the information to anyone not working on
behalf of the client.
Utilitarianism & Confidentiality—Utilitarians would say
that upholding confidentiality produces the greatest good
for the greatest number. If attorneys could not be trusted
to maintain confidentiality, citizens would not be
forthcoming with information that is essential to providing
justice that maximizes happiness. Without full disclosure,
attorneys will not be able to defend their clients optimally.
Without confidentiality justice will suffer, thereby
undermining the good of the client and society.
Are there legitimate exceptions to
upholding confidentiality?
Confidentiality & Exceptions—An attorney may reveal
confidential information if the client consents after
consultation, the attorney has reason to do so in
compliance with a court order, the attorney has reason to
believe it is necessary to prevent the client from
committing a criminal or fraudulent act, to carry out
representation, when necessary to defend against various
allegations, or in consultation with members of the
attorney’s firm, unless otherwise instructed by the client.
W.D. Ross’s philosophy is especially helpful in
understanding exceptions to rules.
What is a fiduciary relationship?
Fiduciary relationship—A fiduciary is a person to
whom property or power is entrusted for the
benefit of others. A fiduciary relationship
between a professional and client involves a trust
that the professional will act in the interest of the
client for the good of the client and society.
Questions
Whistle Blowing
What is whistle blowing?
Are there legal protections for whistle blowers?
What is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?
Is there anything wrong with blowing the whistle?
What is the justification for whistle blowing?
What should a potential whistle blower consider?
What are the moral grounds for protecting whistle
blowers?
What constitutes an effective whistle blowing policy?
What is whistle blowing?
Whistle blowing involves an employee’s
exposure of institutional abuse, fraud, or other
criminal activity or immoral activity, or activity
not in the public interest. Only a member of the
organization alleged to be guilty of wrongful
conduct can be considered a whistle blower.
Information disclosed by the whistle blower must
constitute a serious wrong or have the potential
for serious wrong.
Are there legal protections for
whistle blowers?
The False Claims Act of 1863 (revised 1986)
defended whistle blowers to combat fraud by
suppliers to the federal government during the Civil
War. The act stipulates that whistle blowers are
entitled to a percentage of monies recovered or
damages won in fraud cases. The Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 also protects whistle blowers
from wrongful dismissal or retaliation. Many states
have additional laws protecting whistle blowers.
What is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?
This act is considered to be one of the most important laws related to
whistle blower protection. While most whistle blower protection laws
address remedies for wrongfully treated employees, this act requires
publicly traded corporations to establish procedures to accept whistle
blower complaints. Such corporations must also establish audit
committees that accept internal whistle blower complaints regarding
accounting and auditing matters. The Act also requires attorneys to report
violations of securities law. Furthermore, the Act provides for the
suspension or debarment of a public accounting firm that refuses to
cooperate in an investigation conducted by the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board. All complaints must be filed with the
Department of Labor. Whistle blowers who are victimized by their
employers are entitled to reinstatement, back pay, interest, compensatory
damages, special damages, and attorney fees. The law does not provide
for punitive damages.
Is there anything wrong with
blowing the whistle?
Whistle blowers are frequently criticized for being
disloyal to their organization. Organizations rely
upon trust to act effectively. Moreover, information
disclosed by the whistle blower is often considered
confidential, and employees are expected to file
complaints within the organization.
What is the justification for
whistle blowing?
Although loyalty to employers and trust within an organization are
values worth protecting, these values, like most values, have prima
facie value. Remember that prima facie values or principles can be
overridden by other values or principles. In cases of whistle
blowing, there are conflicts between values. On the one hand, it is
valuable to be loyal and trustworthy toward employers, colleagues,
and peers; conversely, it is valuable to protect the public interest by
reporting criminal or seriously immoral behavior. Few if any values
or principles are absolutely true. Most values or principles have
exceptions. So, the potential whistle blower must weigh, balance,
or prioritize the conflicting values. That is why whistle blowing is
more justifiable the more serious the wrongful conduct.
What should a potential whistle
blower consider?
Is the situation serious enough to warrant blowing the whistle?
Are there enough facts to establish serious wrongdoing?
Are there established internal avenues to follow?
What is your responsibility within the organization?
What is the best way to blow the whistle?
Should the information be revealed anonymously?
What are the moral grounds for
protecting whistle blowers?
Utilitarianism—Whistle blowers should be protected
because it encourages people to reveal conduct that is
harmful to the community and the long-term interest of
the organization. By protecting whistle blowers happiness
is maximized.
Deontological—Protecting whistle blowers shows respect
for the whistle blower. Failure to do so could constitute
treating the person as merely a means for the sake of
corporate profits, for example.
What constitutes an effective
whistle blowing policy?
Organizations should have a clear ethics policy that is
reflective of the institutions values. There should be
procedures for reporting immoral or illegal conduct, and
personnel should be trained to investigate such
complaints. Employees should be protected against
retaliation. Organizations that make a commitment to
cultivating an ethical culture will have fewer problems.
Questions
Medical Ethics
What are the fundamental principles of medical
ethics?
Are there alternative models of medical ethics?
What is the 4-topics method?
What are the fundamental
principles of medical ethics?
The great ethical traditions of virtue, deontology,
utilitarianism, and care influenced medical ethics in a
profound way. Some principles of medical ethics have
been around for thousands of years. The Hippocratic
Oath, which was formulated in ancient Greece, instructs
physicians to do no harm. And Plato and Aristotle
expressed their views on euthanasia and suicide.
Contemporary medical ethics, however, has been
influenced by the work of Tom Beauchamp and James
Childress. Beauchamp and Childress articulated the
following 4 ethical principles for issues in medicine:
•Autonomy—Autonomy means freedom, so this principle means
that we should respect people’s freedom or autonomy. This entails
that patients’ should be informed of their medical condition and
their treatment choices should be respected;
•Beneficence—Beneficence pertains to promoting well-being and
happiness. The promotion of health and the elimination of pain and
suffering are obvious outcomes of this principle;
•Non-maleficence—This principle instructs healthcare providers to
do no harm.
•Justice—This principle pertains to fair access to healthcare
services. It is a principle of non-discrimination.
Beauchamp and Childress contend that each of these
principles is true prima facie. Remember that this
means that healthcare providers ought to follow each
of these principles, but if the principles conflict (they
cannot do them all), they must decide which principle
takes priority.
Are there alternative models
of medical ethics?
Yes. Edmund Pelligrino and David Thomasma emphasize
the virtues that physicians need to cultivate. Albert
Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William Winslade focus on the
details of clinical cases, rather than on principles.
Rosemarie Tong and Susan Sherwin take a feminist
approach to medical ethics that includes care ethics.
There are other views, but this provides an orientation
into the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary
medical ethics.
What is the 4-topics method?
Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade present us with a model of
medical ethics that emphasizes actual cases that
healthcare providers are likely to face. Their approach is
more practical than theoretical. They realize that
healthcare providers must make difficult decision and
that they need guidelines to solve the moral conflicts they
face. In their introduction to Clinical Ethics, they say that
to make good decisions regarding medical ethics, we
must be attentive to the medical facts, the patient’s
preferences, quality of life issues, and the context of the
decision.
Why do these authors emphasize these four features
instead of Beauchamp and Childress’s 4-principle
model? They are emphasizing the fact that finding
solutions to medical ethics cases is not a straightforward
process of applying principles to cases. Cases are
complicated by patients’ religious views, the
psychodynamics among their family members, their
educational level, their financial situations, new
technological developments, and the uncertainties of
medicine.
Questions
Do you understand what is meant in saying that the
principles of biomedical ethics are true prima facie?
What would you decide in the case of Dax Cowart? How
would you defend the ethics of your decision? What
ethical theory supports your decision? Is there an ethical
theory that might be used to argue against your view?
Brain Death
What is the definition of death?
Why was the concept of brain death significant?
What is the medical and legal definition of death today?
What criteria are used to declare brain death?
Is brain death controversial?
What other definitions of death have been proposed?
The Definition of Death
Before the 1950s, a person was medically and legally declared dead if
and only if the person’s heart and lungs had permanently ceased
functioning. Because of a world-wide polio epidemic, health care
providers had to manually pump air into children’s lungs to keep them
alive—a valiant but inefficient treatment. Consequently, artificial
respiration was used for this purpose and later for individuals who had
suffered traumatic brain injury. This provided a gray area between life
and death. Were those whose heart and lungs were kept functioning
artificially but who had no evidence of consciousness really alive? And
since heart transplantation could not be performed unless the circulation
of blood and oxygen kept the heart viable, if heart/lung functioning
remained the definition or criterion for death, taking a person’s heart for
transplantation would constitute murder. For these reasons, the French
proposed and a committee at Harvard developed the idea of brain death.
Why was the concept of brain
death significant?
Brain death served two important functions. First, if people
receiving artificial respiration were never going to regain brain
functioning, brain death provided the rationale for withdrawing
treatment. After all, according to the concept of brain death,
artificial respiration given to a brain dead person is circulating
blood and oxygen through a dead person. Brain death=death!
Second, brain death aided the goals of organ transplantation.
People whose brain functioning had permanently ceased could
be declared dead and then prepared for organ transplantation.
This way organ transplantation of the vital organs (the heart and,
in the past, the liver) would not kill the donor—the donor is
already dead.
What is the medical and legal
definition of death today?
Today, death can be legally declared in two ways. A person is dead if
the person’s heart/lung functioning permanently ceases. And a person
is dead if the person’s brain permanently ceases. One of these
conditions must be met. Physicians have declared death by the
cardiopulmonary or the brain definition depending on the goals of
medicine for particular situations. Most organs are retrieved from
brain dead persons, but there are cases were individuals who are not
brain dead are kept alive by artificial means. Sometimes these patients
want treatment withdrawn, because they are tired of their deaths being
prolonged. And some of these patients consent to donation. In these
cases, treatment is withdrawn and the patients are declared dead after
a couple of minutes of heart/lung failure. To avoid conflicts of
interest, death cannot be declared by members of the transplant team.
What criteria are used to
declare brain death?
Determining brain death is complex and technical. There
are differences among hospitals throughout the U.S.
However, there are some criteria that are standard. As
Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade point out, such criteria
include the absence of pupillary reflex, voluntary and
involuntary movements, gag reflex, and brain stem
functioning. Alternative diagnoses such as drug overdose
and severe hypothermia must be ruled out. Students should
also be aware that brain death is not the same as coma,
persistent vegetative state, or locked in syndrome. In short,
brain death is more traumatic than these other conditions
that result from severe brain injury.
Is brain death controversial?
Yes. The primary problem with brain death is that different parts
of the brain are responsible for different functions. Making
matters complicated is the fact that not all of the functions cease
at once. So, how much of the brain has to cease functioning
permanently to declare brain death? Today, the whole-brain
definition of death has been accepted. What does this mean?
Traditionally, the brain has been divided into those parts
responsible for higher functioning (cerebral cortex) and lower
functioning (e.g. brain stem). Higher functioning involves selfawareness, consciousness, emotions etc.; lower functions
involving breathing, temperature and blood pressure regulation
etc. When and only when the higher and lower functions
permanently cease, the person is dead.
The problem is that even when medical professionals agree
that a person is dead, their brains are still able to produce
hormones and show electrical activity—evidence of brain
function according to some commentators. For these
reasons, some scholars have advocated another shift in the
way we define and determine death.
What other definitions of death
have been proposed?
Higher-brain definition—This definition of death proposes
that a person is dead if and only if the person permanently
loses higher-brain functioning. In this way, even if a person’s
brain stem is still functioning, but the person will never again
experience thoughts or feelings, the person is dead. The
higher-brain definition of death also allows for more organ
transplantation since there are about 4,000 Americans who
are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). PVS patients can
be declared dead according to higher-brain criteria but not by
whole-brain criteria. Today, it is illegal to declare people
dead according to the higher-brain definition.
Cardio-pulmonary definition—Since brain death has
proven to be more complicated than originally thought,
some commentators suggest that we return to the view
that persons are dead if and only if their heart and lungs
permanently cease. The problem with this definition is
that it would undermine the goals of transplantation
unless society accepted the view that vital organs can be
taken from living persons, an unlikely and potentially
disturbing position.
Questions
Do you understand how the different definitions of death affect
organ transplantation?
Do you understand why it is contradictory to say that a person became
brain dead at a particular time and later died?
Which definition of death seems the most plausible to you?
Managed Care
What is managed care?
Is managed care a good system?
What is managed care?
Managed care is contrasted with the fee-for-service
healthcare system. In a fee-for-service system, healthcare
providers charge a fee for each service provided. This
system was financially inefficient, because healthcare
providers had a financial incentive to provide many
services. Moreover, if patients had health insurance to
pick up the tab, they might seek diagnostic tests and
treatments that were unnecessary. Managed care is a
system devised to combat this waste of expensive
healthcare resources.
Managed care organizations (MCOs) take a variety of
forms such as health maintenance organizations (HMOs)
and preferred provider organizations (PPOs), but they
share some common features. First, MCOs are usually
for-profit businesses that contract with hospitals and
healthcare professionals to provide various services.
Second, MCOs pre-pay for anticipated healthcare needs,
so hospitals have an incentive to use their services
efficiently. Third, MCOs emphasize preventive medicine.
This makes sense because healthy patients do not cost
MCOs money which means more profit for the MCO.
Fourth, MCOs implement utilization review.
There are two components to utilization review.
Emphasis is placed on what is called evidence based
medicine. This means there must be a scientific/medical
basis for prescribing a treatment regimen. In this way,
futile treatments or treatments with little benefit can be
eliminated. Physicians are also reviewed to determine
whether they are efficiently using resources. Fifth,
patients in MCOs usually have co-payments for each
doctor visit to provide them with an incentive to avoid
medical treatment unless they are really ill or at risk for
becoming ill. Sixth, MCOs emphasize the role of the
primary care physician (PCP) as a gatekeeper. In some
MCOs patients cannot see a specialist (which is more
expensive) unless they receive a referral from the PCP.
Is managed care a good system?
There is not a straightforward answer to this question. It is good
medically and economically to emphasize preventive medicine and to
find efficient ways to deliver healthcare services. However, managed
care has received much criticism and has thus evolved to overcome the
criticisms. In the past, MCOs often provided bonuses to physicians for
keeping costs down, but this meant that patients were often under
treated. Physicians also objected to the utilization review that enabled
non-physicians working for MCOs to tell physicians how to practice
medicine (e.g. that they should prescribe a less expensive drug). Plus,
because MCOs contracted with a particular group of physicians,
patients’ choices were limited in selecting a doctor—their favorite
doctor might not be a member of that MCO. Some of these problems
have been addressed. Bonuses to physicians for controlling costs have
been eliminated in some plans and PPOs give patients more choices in
selecting doctors.
Questions
To understand the healthcare system and managed care, we must
reflect on our own experiences. When you become ill or concerned
about your health, are you able to make an appointment without
waiting too long? Do you have healthcare insurance? Do you have
a physician who you trust? Does your insurance cost too much?
Must you schedule an appointment with your primary care
physician before seeing a specialist? How expensive are your copayments? If you lose your job, will you be able to continue your
insurance policy?
Given the fact that over 40 million Americans are uninsured, what
changes do you suggest? Would you impose more taxes on the
wealthiest Americans and utilize those revenues for healthcare?
Would you alter the federal budget so that funds are taken from
one program and given to healthcare?
In America, we have a right to assemble, bear arms, vote, private
property, and the pursuit of happiness. However, we do not have a
right to a house or a good standard of living. Do you think
Americans have a right (are entitled) to healthcare? Do children
have a right to healthcare?
Organ Transplantation
Routine Retrieval
Xenotransplantation
Selling Organs
About 6,000 Americans die each year while waiting for
an organ transplant. Since many people die without
consenting to organ donation, the organ transplant
community has suggested alternatives to address the
organ shortage problem. Proposals include routine
retrieval, xenotransplantation, selling organs, re-defining
death, and developing stem cell therapies. Since we
discuss the definition of death and stem cell research in
other sections, here we will limit our discussion to routine
retrieval, xenotransplantation, and selling organs.
Routine Retrieval
In America, we have a policy of explicit consent. This
means that unless a person agrees to be an organ donor
or the person’s family consents to donation, organ
retrieval will not take place. It has been argued that
organs should be retrieved as needed, no matter the
person’s or family’s view of donation. After all, corneas
and pituitary glands are routinely retrieved without
people’s consent. Why not implement routine retrieval
for hearts, livers, kidneys, and pancreases?
Xenotransplantation
Xenotransplantation involves the transplantation of tissues and
organs from a member of one species into a member of another
species. It is cross-species transplantation. The use of pig heart
valves has been the most successful use of animals for
transplants. As far as I know, no transplant of an entire organ
from a non-human to a human has been successful. However, the
improvement of immunosuppressive drugs and the development
of transgenic swine (pigs with human genes) have given some
people hope that pigs can provide an inexhaustible supply of
organs. In addition to the animal rights issue, there are viruses
and bacteria that are benign in pigs that might prove harmful or
fatal to human beings.
Selling Organs
Currently, it is illegal to buy or sell human organs. Since not enough
people become organ donors, some commentators have suggested that
we provide financial incentives. More than likely, allowing people to
sell their organs would save more lives, but is paying people for body
parts ethical? Some people believe that paying people for their organs
exploits the poor. In India, where buying and selling organs is legal,
many impoverished Indians have sold a kidney for about $1,000.
Other commentators add that a market for organs violates Kant’s
second formulation of the categorical imperative—it uses people for
the health benefits of others. Despite these criticisms, some authors
say that America is a free country and argue that people have a right to
sell their organs if they willingly do so. They point out that we allow
people to sell their plasma, eggs, and sperm.
Question
If you are a policy maker, what efforts would you support in
addressing the problem of premature organ failure?
Physician-Assisted
Suicide and Euthanasia
What is euthanasia?
What is the difference between passive and active
euthanasia?
What is physician-assisted suicide?
What is the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1997)?
What are the arguments defending euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide?
What are the arguments against active euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide?
What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia is often referred to as mercy killing. It is
killing or allowing patients to die on the basis of
compassion. The point of euthanasia is to eliminate
patients’ suffering.
What is physician-assisted suicide?
With physician-assisted suicide a physician prescribes
a fatal dosage of barbiturates or some other drug for
the sake of eliminating a patient’s suffering.
Physician-assisted suicide is illegal in every state
except for the state of Oregon.
What is the Oregon Death with
Dignity Act (1997)?
In 1997, the Oregon legislature enacted into law
physician-assisted suicide under specified circumstances.
For a person to receive a physician’s assistance in death,
a person must meet the following conditions:
•The person must be a resident of Oregon;
•The person must be at least 18 years of age;
•The person must be diagnosed as having a terminal
illness by two physicians;
•The person must be evaluated by a psychiatrist;
•The person must sign an informed consent form;
•There must be two witnesses to the patient’s signing
of the consent form.
What are the arguments for euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide?
There are several reasons why many medical ethicists and citizens
support the legalization of active euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide. First, there is the issue of patient autonomy. America’s
emphasis on an individual’s right to make his or her own choices
extends to healthcare. They believe that patients have the right to
decide their own fate, especially when they are suffering. Second,
eliminating suffering is a part of good medical practice. In cases
where people cannot be cured, they believe that it is more humane to
assist people in dying than it is for them to linger in pain. Third, since
some patients have attempted to take their own lives, receiving a
physician’s assistance in death mitigates against a patient from further
harming himself or herself with a botched attempt.
What are the arguments against active
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide?
Many medical ethicists and citizens believe that euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide are immoral and should be illegal. First,
many commentators believe that patients at the end of life should
receive better pain medication and comfort care, not assistance in
killing. Second, they believe that active euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide violate the principle to do no harm. In other words,
they believe it is a violation of professional ethics. Third, some
commentators fear a slippery slope effect. They believe there is a
danger that physicians will become increasingly indiscriminate in
who they kill or assist in dying. In the Netherlands, for example,
people who are depressed have been put to death. Fourth, although
these commentators acknowledge the importance of patient choice,
they believe that the principle of autonomy does not extend to killing
or assisting people in death even if they consent.
Questions
Do you support physician-assisted suicide?
Do you support active euthanasia?
Although withdrawing treatment is often justifiable and noncontroversial, consider the case of Dr. Joan Owens. In this
case Dr. Owens was the patient who gave birth to a child with
Downs Syndrome with duodenal atresia. Duodenal atresia is
the condition whereby a person’s top portion of the small
intestine (duodenum) is closed, thereby preventing the passage
of food. This condition is curable with surgery and lethal
without it. Because Dr. Owens did not want a child with
Downs syndrome, she refused to consent to the surgery. After
consulting with lawyers, the physicians decided to honor Dr.
Owen’s parental authority to block the surgery. At another
hospital, the outcome might have been different. The baby
died 12 days later from starvation. This is considered a case of
passive euthanasia but unjustifiable by many. What would you
do if you were the physicians? Justify your response.
Stem Cells and Cloning
What are stem cells?
Why are scientists interested in stem cell research?
Are there potential problems with stem cell research?
What are the ethical issues associated with stem cell
research?
What is cloning and how is it performed?
Would human clones be identical?
Why is cloning often mentioned in the context of stem cell
research?
What are stem cells?
Stem cells are undifferentiated or unspecialized cells
that give rise to specialized cells that constitute the
various tissues in our bodies. There are embryonic and
adult stem cells.
What are embryonic stem cells?
Embryonic stem cells are usually taken from the
gonadal tissue of aborted fetuses or from early
embryos (called blastocysts) in in vitro fertilization
clinics. At the point of conception a zygote is formed
(the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell). The zygote
begins dividing into more cells. 4 or 5 days after
conception a blastocyst is formed. The blastocyst is a
ball of cells with an inner mass of stem cells.
What are adult stem cells?
Adult stem cells are taken from the various tissues in
our bodies. Adult stem cells have been found in the
liver, skeletal muscles, bone marrow, the brain, and
other tissues. Adult stem cells give rise to other cells of
a particular type of tissue when the tissue is damaged
and needs repair.
Why are scientists interested in
stem cell research?
Stem cells have the ability to replicate indefinitely and to
develop into various cells and tissues. For these reasons, stem
cells have the potential to revolutionize medicine. The hope is
that stem cells will lead to regenerative medicine. That is, when
people’s tissue or organs are badly damaged, it is hoped that stem
cells will regenerate the tissue. Preliminary research has
indicated that embryonic stem cells are more versatile than adult
stem cells and therefore have more therapeutic potential.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be stimulated to
develop into various types of tissue such as liver, heart, or neural
tissue. The hope is that this science will overcome the need for
organ transplantation and will heal those who have suffered
spinal chord injuries.
Are there potential problems with
stem cell research?
Yes. If you are familiar with organ transplantation, you
know that transplant recipients must undergo immune
suppressant drug treatment, because our bodies have a
natural reaction to attack foreign materials including foreign
tissues and organs. The same problem exists for stem cells.
If a patient receives an injection of someone else’s stem
cells, the patient’s immune system might reject those cells.
So, immunosuppressive therapy might be necessary for
patients receiving stem cells. Moreover, it has been shown
that stem cells sometimes cause tumor development.
What are the ethical issues
associated with stem cell research?
As you might have surmised, embryonic stem cell research
is more controversial than adult stem cell research. Many
people believe that an embryo deserves the moral
consideration and legal protection offered to human beings.
So, there is an important issue regarding the moral status of
an embryo. There are several different views of the moral
status of the early embryo.
The Catholic position is that life begins at the moment of
conception. So, the zygote, blastocyst, and fetus deserve
moral consideration. Others argue that an embryo has
moral status in virtue of its potential to develop into a
human being. This argument has become more
complicated, because cloning technologies enable any cell
of our body to become a human being.
Defenders of embryonic stem cell research often take a
developmental approach to moral status. These thinkers
believe that an entity gains or develops moral status as it
develops biologically and psychologically. Some believe
that that the early embryo (blastocyst) is a mass of cells that
does not possess any moral status while others believe that it
has some moral status. They also argue that even if the
blastocyst has some moral status, the potential benefits of
regenerative medicine provide a utilitarian justification for
such research. Another view is the existential view that a
human being does not have moral status until it is born and
begins its life as a separate individual.
The final view is a relational view. Some argue that the
moral status of the blastocyst depends on whether other
people desire to develop a relationship with that entity. So,
the blastocyst that is in a woman’s womb or that will be
implanted into a woman’s womb has more moral status than
a blastocyst that is frozen in an in vitro fertilization clinic.
Each of these views brings a lot of controversy.
What is cloning and how
is it performed?
Cloning is the near duplication of an individual organism.
There are two well-known techniques for cloning.
Parthenogenesis involves the electrical stimulation of an egg
cell that begins cell division as if it were fertilized. Somatic
nuclear transfer requires more explanation. A somatic cell is
any cell in your body other than sex cells (the sperm and
eggs). This type of cloning involves removing or
deactivating (enucleating) an egg cell and then transferring
the nucleus of a somatic cell into the egg cell.
Would human clones be identical?
No. First, clones are nearly but not exactly identical. To a large
extent, our DNA determines who we are. But clones do not have
the exact same DNA. 97-99% of our DNA is in the nucleus of
each of our cells. 1-3% of our DNA is in the mitochondria
outside of the nucleus. So, when we clone by somatic nuclear
transfer, it is not necessarily the case that the mitochondria is
transferred as well. Second, our personality is closely associated
with how our brain has developed. Our genes which are made of
DNA do not provide all of the information for the way our brains
develop. Our genes provide the information for the development
of the basic structure of our brains, but our brains finalize
development only through environmental stimuli which varies
for everyone.
Why is cloning often mentioned in
the context of stem cell research?
Remember that one of the problems with stem cell
therapy is that we will probably have an immune reaction
to foreign stem cells being placed in our bodies. In theory,
this problem can be overcome if the stem cells were taken
from our own bodies. One way to do this is to clone
ourselves and take the stem cells from the embryo once it
develops into a blastocyst.
Questions
What is the moral status of a blastocyst?
Do you support embryonic stem cell research?
Do you support cloning for the purposes of research?
Do you support cloning for the purposes of reproduction?