The Scenario
A few weeks ago, a sixteen-year-old boy was involved in a car accident that left him with heavy injuries and tetraplegia. Preliminary results indicated that he had too much alcohol in his blood. As the family doctor, I was tasked with taking his tests and submitting the results to the insurance company. However, the boy’s father asked me to delete the information from the medical record and include fabricated findings for the reasons of disability insurance coverage. As a professional, I am under duty to comply with the law, but I also feel that I can do something to improve the life of the already disabled teenage boy. For that reason, I am faced with a difficult decision where I have to decide whether or not to report the real findings to the insurance company or to fabricate new findings and ensure that the boy gets disability insurance coverage.
The Decision
After a long period of constant and heavy contemplation, I decided that the right thing was to introduce new findings and give the boy access to disability insurance coverage. Legally, this was the wrong thing to do as I was supposed to report the actual findings. Since the fabrication of results was aimed at ensuring access to insurance coverage, this decision would be categorized as insurance fraud. Despite this realization, I decided to follow my conscience and undertook to do what was ethical at the moment. The father and his son were the main beneficiaries of this decision while the insurance company became the loser.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarian Theory by John Stuart Mill
The decision made above was informed by the Utilitarian philosophy advanced by John Stuart Mill. John Stuart argues that Utilitarian ethics holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they support the reverse of happiness. The foundation of Utilitarianism is known as the Great Happiness (Waluchow, 2013). The Notion of Great Happiness encompasses the maximum pleasure of the actors involved in a certain situation. I believe, therefore, that my decision promoted happiness as it would ensure that the boy in question was properly covered by his insurance company for the injuries suffered and tetraplegia. Of course, one can challenge this decision by arguing that the boy was drunk and did not deserve insurance coverage because the injuries were self-afflicted. I maintain, nevertheless, that an ethical decision is that which allows the boy to acquire access to better healthcare and saves the money of the father. By doing so, one would be giving the boy a chance to reform and make ethical decisions in the future.
Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics
According to Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, whether a situation is ethical or not depends on the actions of the actor. The theory is focused on the rightness or wrongness of the actions in question. It differs from Utilitarianism on the basis of consequences of the actions. In the present scenario, my decision to cover up the drunkenness of the boy would mean that I acted unethically as I am under duty to report facts as they appear. Whether or not this will improve the living conditions of this boy is immaterial provided I did the right thing initially. According to Waluchow (2013), to a deontologist, whether I acted ethically is wholly dependent on a determination of whether the action that brought the desired result was right or wrong.
References
Waluchow, W. J. (2013). The dimensions of ethics: An introduction to ethical theory . Brantford, Ont.: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library.
