The extreme measure is a movie that deals with the moral dilemma in light of the doctrines that actions are permissive when and if they are of benefit to the majority, this disregarding the locus of what is wrong ( Apted et al., 1996 ). This ethical theory solely focuses on the outcomes of the policy or action taken. Therefore, the normative ethical theory moves beyond the compass of an individual's interest and takes into consideration the interests of others. This moral theory advocate for actions that aim at the betterment of society. However, it is important to consider the outcomes of our actions as they are crucial.
Nevertheless, the limitation of the theory has to do with justice. Thus the violation of a few individual's justices to benefit others. This standard objection of what rightfully belongs to others is so much so a violation of the justice system. Consequently, ethical theory is fundamentally flawed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The film Extreme Measures (1996), principally leads us to dwell on the issue of the moral acceptability to kidnap and hold against will, to perform experiments on and to murder a few healthy individuals for medical research ( Baños & Bosch 2015). The medical dilemma in the film is paralysis, a condition that debilitates tens of thousands. Essentially, utilitarianism is depicted in the film through the numerous medical research methods tested on the few healthy people. Dr. Myrick Lawrence, a distinguished doctor in neurology and medical research, provides the focus on the ethical theory in the film. On the other hand, is Dr. Luthan Guy, who questions the acceptability of the medical sacrifices performed by the neurologist ( Shapshay, 2009 ).
Dr. Myrick coerces homeless people from their underground dwellings to be his experimental lab-rats ( Apted et al., 1996 ). The doctor insists that these homeless people were a nuisance to the society and whose absence would not be felt. Through his method, utilitarianism, the doctor made strides in restoring the mobility of paralytic patients. Effectively, Dr. Myrick was successful in inducing the growth of nerves to his paralyzed patients who would be able to move again. In spite of the significant breakthroughs, the cost was the many lives lost through the experiments. The antagonist, Dr. Guy, a New York emergency room doctor, finds himself handling a strange patient one night. The patient, a sickly strange man, had on his wrist the tag of a hospital Guy was not familiar. The homeless man mentioned drugs Guy had never heard before and had a wildly beating heart rate with strange symptoms, and he died under his care.
From the perspective of utilitarianism, the neurologist, Dr. Myrick individual acts produced benefits for the greater number. Nevertheless, it is debatable at one point; his research robs people their life, people Dr. Myrick claimed to have no purpose and not much point to their lives. In the neurologist's eyes, the homeless people spent their time lost and intoxicated with drugs, terming them lost souls with no future. Therefore, in exchange for their lives to further and redefine medical boundaries, these homeless people become heroes. The quandary here is the betterment for millions of people who will be able to walk again and the deaths of the innocent homeless people ( Baños & Bosch 2015). Dr. Myrick poses a question to Dr. Guy that has very debatable answers, he asks, “If you could cure cancer by killing one person, wouldn’t you have to do that?” ( Apted, et al., 1996 ). Furthermore, he claimed that it is very life nature that people die every day, and his medical research gives purpose to the lives of those without.
Dr. Guy finds himself following a dangerous trail that sidetracks his professional and personal life. He is on the quest to find out what exactly happens to this estranged man from a strange hospital. His attempts almost get him fired and killed. He is warned by his superiors to drop the chase. Eventually, the police get to him and arrest him. In the process, he loses his job. In exasperation, he goes to the streets and is homeless. Guy relentlessly continues with his chase, and this gets him injured and taken to the hospital. He wakes up in the hospital, and Dr. Myrick asks him what he would give to gain his old life back. In no hesitation, Guy replies that he would do anything.
The relevance of the film covers the subject of voluntariness and consent. Notably, the homeless people did not agree with the experiments being performed on them. The film also brings up the question that is not easily answered; "If you had to kill one person to cure cancer, wouldn't you have to do that?" ( Apted, et al., 1996 ). The two main themes of the film involve medical ethics in medical experiments. These ethics are the involuntariness of Dr. Myrick’s subjects and the profit gain of the experiments benefiting the greater public. According to Baños & Bosch (2015), t he first point is termed unethical by the medical standards of research. Fundamentally, no medical research subject should be experimented on without signed consent, and the full experiment simplified to them. This ethic is mandatory and disregards the subjects' well-ness in terms of whether or not a subject is a homeless person. All medical research subjects are equal and should be given a choice to participate in the research ( Shapshay, 2009).
The second point is the gain of Dr. Myrick’s research as per Baños & Bosch (2015). The scale is not measured by the number of people killed but by the benefits in lives saved through the success of the experiment. In sum, I believe that the film is a perfect picture of the possible grey areas in medical researches. To make advancements in the medical field, researchers could use unethical methods even with good intentions. The interesting aspect of the film is the fact that Dr. Guy, who for an instant experienced being paralyzed, would have joined the research team of Dr. Myrick. Nevertheless, researchers must think about the moral virtues and principles relevant to human rights. The prevalent reasoning that only consequences matter should not be considered as morality is equally important.
References
Apted, M., Grant, H., Hackman, G., & Parker, S. J. (1996). Extreme Measures.
Baños, J. E., & Bosch, F. (2015). Using feature films as a teaching tool in medical schools. Educación Médica , 16 (4), 206-211.
Shapshay, S. (Ed.). (2009). Bioethics at the Movies . JHU Press.
