Ethical Disconnect

[2011MS1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I have always been interested in Ethics and Business side of medicine. For med school, I wanted to something with ethical focus (like the one Baylor has). However, I am becoming increasing concerned with the gap understanding between those that took ethics class before and those that have no formal training what so ever. People seem to blur any short of distinction between, societal expectance, intuition and ethics.

For example:

We were talking about insurance company. In a hypothetical situation, where your risk is so high, that you are uninsurable economically, and huge economically loss of be occurred by the insurance company if they do insure you. Some people argue that insurance company should to insure that person because the risk is not his fault. I argue that while insurance company may be "the right thing to do" but there is no way they would be morally obligated to take a loss. For example is a pharmaceutical company morally obligated to give away medicine that would save people's life?

However that is not the point. The point is that people do not make any distinction between what is ethical standard and good Samaritan standard and for them Ethics is intuitive.

When people don't have a good grasp of what is ethics it become very difficult to talk about ethics. This happens so often that I don't think ethics is nearly as useful as I first thought. It seems like ethics are only able to convey their idea with each other and have almost no sway in public opinion of any sort.

Do you guys encounter this kind of difficulty?

 

[Depakote]

We were talking about insurance company. In a hypothetical situation, where your risk is so high, that you are uninsurable economically, and huge economically loss of be occurred by the insurance company if they do insure you. Some people argue that insurance company should to insure that person because the risk is not his fault. I argue that while insurance company may be “the right thing to do” but there is no way they would be morally obligated to take a loss. For example is a pharmaceutical company morally obligated to give away medicine that would save people’s life?

[Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies] [Morality]

Pick one.

 

[Spiker]

You are missing his point

 

[Depakote]

edit to address the question more directly:

When people don’t have a good grasp of what is ethics it become very difficult to talk about ethics. This happens so often that I don’t think ethics is nearly as useful as I first thought. It seems like ethics are only able to convey their idea with each other and have almost no sway in public opinion of any sort.

1)- OP's question
In my experience, formal ethics training isn't generally as applicable as most philosophy professors might have you think. Yes, there are situations where you need to sit down and consider all the ethical ramifications of a decision you're making, but in the vast majority of your day to day calls, you'll be shooting from the hip and doing this without formalizing the process.

I had a few ethics classes in undergrad, and some focused ethics sessions in med school. They do give you a structure to work with, but formalizing the process is rarely done.

2)- original point
Now for my comment about insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. You have an interesting situation where their business model has reduced patients to customers. Their motivation is to generate revenue, not provide healthcare. This must be kept in mind when dealing with them. The patient's best interest is NOT their top priority. It's an interesting conflict of interest given the power they have in healthcare decision making. But don't expect them to give away care, they only benefit when the patient is able to pay them... That's their motivation.

 

[2011MS1]

I agree with what you said about insurance company. They are business and business make money, moral consideration isnt that big of a concern. I have my formal arguments in that regard but I wont bring it here.

Here I can bring another case

If a person is dieing in front of you and you can save him by giving him 100 dollar. Most people in my class would argue that it is "the right thing to do" and should be done therefor moral

What if it takes $1 Million, assuming that you have it? What if the person is in Africa (it is conceivable that you can save a person live with 100$ donation). Most in my class would say no. However they offer no justification why amount or distance should differ in deciding a person's life other than that it doesnt "Feel" right.

It is just quiet frustrating that it is almost impossible to talk to peers about ethics, unless they are trained.

 

[dru2002]

I agree with what you said about insurance company. They are business and business make money, moral consideration isnt that big of a concern. I have my formal arguments in that regard but I wont bring it here.

Here I can bring another case

If a person is dieing in front of you and you can save him by giving him 100 dollar. Most people in my class would argue that it is "the right thing to do" and should be done therefor moral

What if it takes $1 Million, assuming that you have it? What if the person is in Africa (it is conceivable that you can save a person live with 100$ donation). Most in my class would say no. However they offer no justification why amount or distance should differ in deciding a person's life other than that it doesnt "Feel" right.

It is just quiet frustrating that it is almost impossible to talk to peers about ethics, unless they are trained.

Someone's read Moral Minds or had a professor who has read Moral Minds.

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-N...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257449847&sr=8-1

 

[2011MS1]

Someone's read Moral Minds or had a professor who has read Moral Minds.

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-N...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257449847&sr=8-1

There is a ethical theory called "Virtue/or Intuitation Ethics". However that is not very popular in the philosophical realm (largely because of the discrepancy people have about "what is the right thing to do").

So when ethicist or I talk about ethics we talk it in the perspective of the two predominate ethical theory: consequentialism and deontology. While most people without training is essentially talking about Virtual Ethics. It essentially causes a disconnect where the conversation goes no where.

 

[ronakp10]

...It essentially causes a disconnect where the conversation goes no where.

Yup, most conversations regarding controversial matter not only end with a shred of a conclusion, but instead a wild and sometimes hateful tangent. Welcome to the real world...

 

[greatnt249]

There is a ethical theory called "Virtue/or Intuitation Ethics". However that is not very popular in the philosophical realm (largely because of the discrepancy people have about "what is the right thing to do").

So when ethicist or I talk about ethics we talk it in the perspective of the two predominate ethical theory: consequentialism and deontology. While most people without training is essentially talking about Virtual Ethics. It essentially causes a disconnect where the conversation goes no where.

Did you actually have a point, or are you just venting because more "tuned" minds aren't available to wax philosophical with?

 

[argonaute]

while i sort of understand your sentiment that it is difficult to philosophically reason with untrained minds with ethics, i don't believe that a pureful philosophical view of ethics is the right approach. philosophers can waste away their entire lives arguing the semantics and details of ethics- but ethics this way is not useful. we can't afford to wait for philosophers to come up with a perfect answer that will never pop up. we need to try to do what we can to try to ensure a high standard of living, including healthcare, for everyone- a philosophically unreachable goal.

i'm probably not qualified in anyway to support my statement. all i know is that i listened to a talk from a philosophy professor to debate (against) the ethics and morality of abortion, and i was rather disgusted by his arguments based purely on "logic" from initial statements that aren't necessarily true, while leaving out the human aspect of it and how unwanted pregnancies can affect the lives of the mothers too.

 

[tncekm]

[Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies] [Morality]

Pick one.

Morality applied universally -OR- amorality

Pick one.

 

[LizzyM]

Insurance is a way of sharing the financial risk associated with unpredictable and relatively rare events. Traditionally, underwriters would determine the probability that an adverse event would occur and require a payment (premium) that was, in a sense, a bet. "If your cargo ship does not make it back, I will compensate you $$$ for the loss of the ship. Please pay a premium of x for this insurance coverage."

With a pre-existing condition, what you've got is a very high likelihood of a very expensive insurance claim by the person attempting to purchase insurance. The premium needed to cover that risk is likely to be "too high". If the person can go into a large pool of "covered lives", basically being subsidized by those with very low likelihood of an expensive claim, then it is possible to be covered by an insurance policy.

The problem arises when someone with a high likelilhood of big medical bills in the near future can't get into a large pool because they are self-employed, unemployable but inelgibile for medicaid (government coverage for the poor) or not offered health insurance through their job.

Who is going to force (or demand, based on a moral argument) a business to sell a product (insurance policy) for a price that is so low that they are almost certain to lose money on it?

This has nothing to do with health. A business is being asked to sell a product below cost. A business won't be in business for long if required by law to conduct itself in that way.

 

[seelee]

This has happened to me in our medical ethics discussions. I mistakenly assumed that the purpose of the small-group sessions was to discuss the ethics of different case studies. The actual purpose of the class is for each medical student to take turns sympathizing with the helpless patient, calling the doctor an uncaring SOB, and pontificating about how "wrong" that is.

When ever discussing any ethical situation in medical school, the right answer is always "sit down with the patient, empathize with them, hold their hand and reach out and try to understand how they are feeling...etc."

 

[cardinal2010]

Insurance is a way of sharing the financial risk associated with unpredictable and relatively rare events. Traditionally, underwriters would determine the probability that an adverse event would occur and require a payment (premium) that was, in a sense, a bet. "If your cargo ship does not make it back, I will compensate you $$$ for the loss of the ship. Please pay a premium of x for this insurance coverage."

With a pre-existing condition, what you've got is a very high likelihood of a very expensive insurance claim by the person attempting to purchase insurance. The premium needed to cover that risk is likely to be "too high". If the person can go into a large pool of "covered lives", basically being subsidized by those with very low likelihood of an expensive claim, then it is possible to be covered by an insurance policy.

The problem arises when someone with a high likelilhood of big medical bills in the near future can't get into a large pool because they are self-employed, unemployable but inelgibile for medicaid (government coverage for the poor) or not offered health insurance through their job.

Who is going to force (or demand, based on a moral argument) a business to sell a product (insurance policy) for a price that is so low that they are almost certain to lose money on it?

This has nothing to do with health. A business is being asked to sell a product below cost. A business won't be in business for long if required by law to conduct itself in that way.

All true, but it is likely that the insurance companies will be required by law to cover those with pre-existing conditions anyways.

Why this won't lead to either insurance company bankruptcy or a massive spike in everyone's premiums to offset the losses is that current proposals will add millions more to insurance rolls (who generally are younger and less expensive to insure) to spread the cost/risk and counteract the otherwise increasing average payment per enrollee (which = premium - profit).

 

[2011MS1]

Did you actually have a point, or are you just venting because more "tuned" minds aren't available to wax philosophical with?

There are several points to this post. First to see if others encounter similar problem, during "ethical" discussion in a non-ethics class. Second, discuss the actual usefulness of futher persuing ethics.

Lastly, I want to know the situation in Med School, do people at least have a basic understanding of what ethics is? Is it going to be very difficult to voice opposing view to what "seems right" ?

qouting Seelee "This has happened to me in our medical ethics discussions. I mistakenly assumed that the purpose of the small-group sessions was to discuss the ethics of different case studies. " I really hope that is not the case for most medical schools.

"

 

[dru2002]

There are several points to this post. First to see if others encounter similar problem, during "ethical" discussion in a non-ethics class. Second, discuss the actual usefulness of futher persuing ethics.

Lastly, I want to know the situation in Med School, do people at least have a basic understanding of what ethics is? Is it going to be very difficult to voice opposing view to what "seems right" ?

qouting Seelee "This has happened to me in our medical ethics discussions. I mistakenly assumed that the purpose of the small-group sessions was to discuss the ethics of different case studies. " I really hope that is not the case for most medical schools.

"

There is a ethical theory called "Virtue/or Intuitation Ethics". However that is not very popular in the philosophical realm (largely because of the discrepancy people have about "what is the right thing to do").

So when ethicist or I talk about ethics we talk it in the perspective of the two predominate ethical theory: consequentialism and deontology. While most people without training is essentially talking about Virtual Ethics. It essentially causes a disconnect where the conversation goes no where.

You may find a peer or two that can talk about ethics in the way you describe at medical school, but on the whole, I think you are gonna be disappointed. I am just a pre-med though so what do I know.

 

[greatnt249]

There are several points to this post. First to see if others encounter similar problem, during "ethical" discussion in a non-ethics class. Second, discuss the actual usefulness of futher persuing ethics.

Lastly, I want to know the situation in Med School, do people at least have a basic understanding of what ethics is? Is it going to be very difficult to voice opposing view to what "seems right" ?

qouting Seelee "This has happened to me in our medical ethics discussions. I mistakenly assumed that the purpose of the small-group sessions was to discuss the ethics of different case studies. " I really hope that is not the case for most medical schools.

"

All you have to do to stimulate discussion is say you're playing DA; it's that simple.

You're invariably going to find people who calculate the morality of actions differently than you, whether it be from a teleological, deontological, divine command, virtuous, etc. standpoint. Does that make everyone else wrong and you right because you happen to be a strict adherent to (insert moral theory)?

I'm afraid I still don't really understand your point. Are you upset that people don't think more about why they believe certain actions are right/wrong? That's to be expected; if someone's deeply rooted in a moral preference, hitting them with logic and vague hypotheticals is probably not going to change that. This neglects the fact that a lot of ethical decisions are made on the fly (be it good or bad) in medicine; time to reflect is simply not a luxury to be had in many situations.

And yes, you should pretty much expect to be hit with the dogma of the medical community during your "ethics" discussions (in reference to your fears that the discussions will be as Seelee described). If you like ethical hypotheticals so much, form a club and see what happens.

 

[2011MS1]

Well I did start a club at my university and it is one of the most successful one in the university. So I guess I do have some people that I can discuss ethics with, but I really want to extend some of the ethical discussion beyond just those who are really interested.

I guess it is quiet clear that when people talk about "Ethics" the majority of time they dont mean it at all (it is rather just their opinion of things, not even virtualism because they make no attempt in any justification why what they feel is what should be) , even in medical school.

While I am not saying ethics is all powerful answer, but some discussion of it would help in solving some of the problems. However, when people see virtual ethics as the only one, without realizing that there are other quiet valid ways of thought, it is become hard to make prograess. It is like a Pro-life activist who never even heard of what pro-choice is. So when I say something different it is as if i am speaking in foreign language or something.

I wish medical school at least give people some basic philosophical thoughts in Ethics, just so everyone at least know what i am talking about, instead of just thinking i am some illogical ******. But, I guess they dont from what I am hearing.

 

[greatnt249]

Well I did start a club at my university and it is one of the most successful one in the university. So I guess I do have some people that I can discuss ethics with, but I really want to extend some of the ethical discussion beyond just those who are really interested.

I guess it is quiet clear that when people talk about "Ethics" the majority of time they dont mean it at all (it is rather just their opinion of things, not even virtualism because they make no attempt in any justification why what they feel is what should be) , even in medical school.

While I am not saying ethics is all powerful answer, but some discussion of it would help in solving some of the problems. However, when people see virtual ethics as the only one, without realizing that there are other quiet valid ways of thought, it is become hard to make prograess. It is like a Pro-life activist who never even heard of what pro-choice is. So when I say something different it is as if i am speaking in foreign language or something.

I wish medical school at least give people some basic philosophical thoughts in Ethics, just so everyone at least know what i am talking about, instead of just thinking i am some illogical ******. But, I guess they dont from what I am hearing.

Well, I can see why you're not getting anywhere when you keep calling it "virtual" ethics. Additionally, when you don't make your intentions clear for taking a certain ethical standpoint (especially if it differs from the "norm"), people are going to wonder how you came to such conclusions; they're not going to make the jump to "oh, this guys looking for a rational debate." You can't expect people to have the time to debate your viewpoints if you don't state that it is your intention to do so.

On that note, progress toward what? It would help if you would cite (a) certain instance(s) in which virtue ethics fails and consequential/Kantian/prima facie/etc. ethics should take precedence; otherwise, it just seems like your ranting against people who make decisions differently than you do. You will always find people who don't have the time/can't be bothered with justifying their views. Does that make them bad people? I wouldn't say it does; they've just found a system for making ethical decisions that works for them. To me, there's nothing inherently wrong with virtue ethics because most people do not need to get all metaphysical to apply those standards to their way of living. It seems to be a problem for you precisely because no one has the time to debate metaphysics, to which I ask; what did you expect?

I respect the person who holds consistent viewpoints (albeit ones I may disagree with) more than I do the individual that's wishy-washy with the moral theories he/she chooses to justify decisions/actions; the latter is borderline sociopathic. Respect goes both ways; so far, you've been looking down on others for holding ethical viewpoints different than your own, which is exactly what you're ranting against them for.

 

[apumic]

Well I did start a club at my university and it is one of the most successful one in the university. So I guess I do have some people that I can discuss ethics with, but I really want to extend some of the ethical discussion beyond just those who are really interested.

Honestly... someone who tries to debate ethics with you all the time is just plain annoying. Sure, a good debate is interesting from time to time and within the right group of people (i.e., your club in this case), I think debating these things is a great thing; however, to "extend the discussion beyond those who are interested" just makes you sound like an annoying, one-track-minded individual. You see things differently than others. You should learn to accept that. Other people generally don't feel a need to justify everything they do. Human beings tend to think more based upon emotion than they do based upon rational thinking.

I guess it is quiet clear that when people talk about "Ethics" the majority of time they dont mean it at all (it is rather just their opinion of things, not even virtualism because they make no attempt in any justification why what they feel is what should be) , even in medical school.

And your version of ethics is anything more than your own opinion of things? Sure, ethical theories are great and all but they are just that and most of them have never been given any real, empirical consideration. They are simply a prescribed set of expectations.

While I am not saying ethics is all powerful answer, but some discussion of it would help in solving some of the problems. However, when people see virtual ethics as the only one, without realizing that there are other quiet valid ways of thought, it is become hard to make prograess. It is like a Pro-life activist who never even heard of what pro-choice is. So when I say something different it is as if i am speaking in foreign language or something.

It kind of sounds like you need to take some classes in communication and persuasion. You're approaching with logic something that human nature does not give to the rational mind.

 

[teenmachinery1]

With all due respect, I'm not liking your examples.

For your insurance company example: this is only an ethical question if we presuppose that it's ethical (or necessary) for insurance companies to make a profit at all. In other words, we only have this ethical dilemma of profit vs. high-risk clients because we have a government that has decided insurance providers can or should be motivated by profit. The scenario your propose wouldn't make sense to someone who, let's say, lives in Germany, because their health care insurance providers are by law not allowed to make a profit.

Only once we presuppose that it's ethical for health-care insurance providers to be driven by the profit motive could we have the kind of discussion you're proposing. Since, this isn't something I agree to or concede to I think it's a waste of time to discuss this as the way you framed it.

Now, with your 100$ vs. million dollars to save someone here or in africa situation... this is truly not worth discussing. This is the kind of scenario that is fun to waste your time around a bonfire with your buddies, but is so weighted down by a baggage of presuppositions and conditions that it renders the exercise untranslatable to the world we have at hand.

Actual case-studies are way more useful than these juvenile what-if type scenarios. It's just mental masturbation with 5$ philosophical terms used as lubricant.

And finally, if you can't have these real-life discussions without using philosophical, rarefied academic terminology that only few have... you're missing the point then aren't you?

 

[teenmachinery1]

sorry, repeat post.

 

[teenmachinery1]

sorry, repeat post.

 

[teenmachinery1]

ditto.

 

[greatnt249]

Your examples are no good.

Your insurance example presupposes that it's ethical for health insurance companies to be driven by the profit motive. I disagree so our discussion ends before it starts. Many countries have decided otherwise and have in fact outlawed health insurance companies to be able to make a profit.

Your 1$ verses 100$ to save someone here or in africa scenario is abstract, irrelevant, inconducive to serious discussion, ill-framed, ill-defined, tangentially related to anything relevant... etc.

Why not stick with case studies and real-world scenarios and examples?

And finally, if you have to discuss these ethical matters using 5$ philosophical, academic, rarefied terms... then you're missing the point then aren't you?

Discussing abstract ethical dilemmas is just mental masturbation with rarefied philosophical terms serving as lubricant.

Dude...ever heard of the edit function?

 

[Tin Man]

What I see from the OP's original post...

Money vs human life/human health

Hmm... maybe there is a problem with people's understanding of what is moral and what is not moral, but as far as I'm concerned, there isn't even a question here. Perhaps the people who have this "gap understanding" of ethics are the ones who actually think there is something to debate here.

 

[Eyti]

while i sort of understand your sentiment that it is difficult to philosophically reason with untrained minds with ethics, i don't believe that a pureful philosophical view of ethics is the right approach. philosophers can waste away their entire lives arguing the semantics and details of ethics- but ethics this way is not useful. we can't afford to wait for philosophers to come up with a perfect answer that will never pop up. we need to try to do what we can to try to ensure a high standard of living, including healthcare, for everyone- a philosophically unreachable goal.

i'm probably not qualified in anyway to support my statement. all i know is that i listened to a talk from a philosophy professor to debate (against) the ethics and morality of abortion, and i was rather disgusted by his arguments based purely on "logic" from initial statements that aren't necessarily true, while leaving out the human aspect of it and how unwanted pregnancies can affect the lives of the mothers too.

First, I'd like to say that this is an interesting conversation that I would try to give more specific input were time not an issue. You say that it is not possible to give everyone a high standard of living including health care. I don't understand why I should not be allowed to hope to constantly work towards the goal of having equal living standards where we can all grow as individuals and a society. I get the feeling that self-absorption is all that stands in the way of making huge progress towards equality.

Your arguments are going to be based on what you choose to believe to be possible of humanity. If in you think that in the future, "money" must rule over us the way it does today, then you are going to be proposing solutions that perpetuate the current framework of society. If however, you decide to believe in the possibility of something different, something better, you will start seeing the opportunities for the creation of that better world. In the end that's what it comes down to: Using your mind to create the reality you want the world to see.

 

[Eyti]

What I see from the OP's original post...

Money vs human life/human health

Hmm... maybe there is a problem with people's understanding of what is moral and what is not moral, but as far as I'm concerned, there isn't even a question here. Perhaps the people who have this "gap understanding" of ethics are the ones who actually think there is something to debate here.

I think its a matter of ideas about the importance of money that limit us from appreciating the importance of protecting the well-being of the individuals of our species. How can we progress on a cognitive level if we are allow one another to suffer at our own hands every day? Its like being a young teenager cutting him or herself or having bulimia and somehow thinking that the kid is in some way healthy. That kid and our present society behave in similar ways - they suppress the fact that they are killing themselves.

 

[Spiker]

With all due respect, I'm not liking your examples.

For your insurance company example: this is only an ethical question if we presuppose that it's ethical (or necessary) for insurance companies to make a profit at all. In other words, we only have this ethical dilemma of profit vs. high-risk clients because we have a government that has decided insurance providers can or should be motivated by profit. The scenario your propose wouldn't make sense to someone who, let's say, lives in Germany, because their health care insurance providers are by law not allowed to make a profit.

Only once we presuppose that it's ethical for health-care insurance providers to be driven by the profit motive could we have the kind of discussion you're proposing. Since, this isn't something I agree to or concede to I think it's a waste of time to discuss this as the way you framed it.

Now, with your 100$ vs. million dollars to save someone here or in africa situation... this is truly not worth discussing. This is the kind of scenario that is fun to waste your time around a bonfire with your buddies, but is so weighted down by a baggage of presuppositions and conditions that it renders the exercise untranslatable to the world we have at hand.

Actual case-studies are way more useful than these juvenile what-if type scenarios. It's just mental masturbation with 5$ philosophical terms used as lubricant.

And finally, if you can't have these real-life discussions without using philosophical, rarefied academic terminology that only few have... you're missing the point then aren't you?

What about 100$ to save someone's life in africa look at all the TV commercials asking for donation? I can certainly happen. However people wont say that is morally required. What about 100$ to save someone in front of you? most people would say that is morally required. People rarely put any thought into their decisions. It is certainly pretty "real-life". For most "case study" the way to study is to break it down into simpler concepts that can be discussed more easily.

 

[Eyti]

What about 100$ to save someone;s life in africa? I can certainly happen. However people wont say that is morally required. What about 100$ to save someone in front of you? most people would say that is morally required. People rarely put any thought into their decisions.

I have to agree with teenmachinery1 in that its largely mental masturbation. Its mis-directed in the same way masturbation is mis-directed: rather than looking at how to grow your individual sexuality by getting laid you occupy your sexual thoughts with someone else's fake sexual vision (porn).
The africa examples are that kind of misdirecting examples that get us distracted from recognizing the real questions that can lead to a constructive dialogue.

 

[2011MS1]

For people who are making a huge deal regarding the insurance company's example.

I stated before and i will restated i dont care if you think the insurance should or shouldnt insure that person. It isnt my point at all.

And of course I didnt try to use all the academic terms but hardly anyone in my class understand the word "ethic" which include but NOT limited to people opinion.

And lastly the reason i keep calling it virtual ethics is to give it some validity. Of course i can just call it pure opinion, which is what it really is unless people at least try to advance their argument.

And no I dont try to put other people down because they never had ethics class. In fact quiet contrary. I understand their view point and try to bring an alternative view point (which i may or may not agree with) and they are the ones not making much effort in understanding it, because they never thought alternative view points' possibilities.

I hope you agree that there is a difference (big or small) between:

What is your opinion?
What is ethical?

"On that note, progress toward what? It would help if you would cite (a) certain instance(s) in which virtue ethics fails and consequential/Kantian/prima facie/etc. ethics should take precedence;"

Progress toward Understanding the situation better. How would you know which theory is the most applicable to which situation unless you at least consider more than just one theory? and if you really want me to cite some academic sources, just read biomedical ethics by glannon, he will outlines where each theory fails and where they are most applicable.

 

[greatnt249]

For people who are making a huge deal regarding the insurance company's example.

I stated before and i will restated i dont care if you think the insurance should or shouldnt insure that person. It isnt my point at all.

And of course I didnt try to use all the academic terms but hardly anyone in my class understand the word "ethic" which include but NOT limited to people opinion.

And lastly the reason i keep calling it virtual ethics is to give it some validity. Of course i can just call it pure opinion, which is what it really is unless people at least try to advance their argument.

And no I dont try to put other people down because they never had ethics class. In fact quiet contrary. I understand their view point and try to bring an alternative view point (which i may or may not agree with) and they are the ones not making much effort in understanding it, because they never thought alternative view points' possibilities.

I hope you agree that there is a difference (big or small) between:

What is your opinion?
What is ethical?

And I'm trying to explain to you that you can't expect everyone to have the time/make the effort to engage in a debate with you just because you feel like having one; it's a ridiculously high expectation on your part.

 

[2011MS1]

And I'm trying to explain to you that you can't expect everyone to have the time/make the effort to engage in a debate with you just because you feel like having one; it's a ridiculously high expectation on your part.

I didnt think it should because it only require the understanding of a handful of concepts if even that. I would have thought medical school would at least put some minimal effort in that.

I guess I am wrong.

Oh btw I am not forcing stranger into ethical discussion with me lol. It was in a class and the teacher expected us to discuss if something is ethical.

 

[greatnt249]

I didnt think it should because it only require the understanding of a handful of concepts if even that. I would have thought medical school would at least put some minimal effort in that.

I guess I am wrong.

Oh btw I am not forcing stranger into ethical discussion with me lol. It was in a class and the teacher expected us to discuss if something is ethical.

In preclinical years, you'll be spending the overwhelming majority of your time learning the basic sciences/clinical principles of pathophysiology, not debating the ethics of medical practice. As an MS1/MS2, you're not really in the position to question standing practices, anyway; you won't find out what it's "really" like in healthcare until you're in the thick of it, and even then, you'll be too tired/busy studying to question the powers that be.

If you're that interested, start/join a club or elective that discusses issues that you have; don't expect ethics to be covered much in the preclinical years.

 

[Eyti]

So I have always been interested in Ethics and Business side of medicine. For med school, I wanted to something with ethical focus (like the one Baylor has). However, I am becoming increasing concerned with the gap understanding between those that took ethics class before and those that have no formal training what so ever. People seem to blur any short of distinction between, societal expectance, intuition and ethics.

For example:

[[1]]We were talking about insurance company. In a hypothetical situation, where your risk is so high, that you are uninsurable economically, and huge economically loss of be occurred by the insurance company if they do insure you. Some people argue that insurance company should to insure that person because the risk is not his fault. I argue that while insurance company may be "the right thing to do" but there is no way they would be morally obligated to take a loss. For example is a pharmaceutical company morally obligated to give away medicine that would save people's life?

However that is not the point. The point is that people do not make any distinction between what is ethical standard and good Samaritan standard and for them Ethics is intuitive.

When people don't have a good grasp of what is ethics it become very difficult to talk about ethics. This happens so often that I don't think ethics is nearly as useful as I first thought. It seems like ethics are only able to convey their idea with each other and have almost no sway in public opinion of any sort.

Do you guys encounter this kind of difficulty?

For me the problem is that what your ethical questions (examples) seem to ask of me is to choose to side with one belief system over another by forcing me to make a personal decision about what it is that I value more. Do I value (A) the idea that every human is a part of the same living system and that our well-being is inter-dependent or do I value (B) the idea that the present system that relies on instant gratification is the way humans must continue living.

I think that all we need to do now is change the way we think. That's all there is to it. Its not some major revolution, its about expanding what we feel to be part of ourselves by being less self-consumed which in part depends on letting go of "B".

 

[Spiker]

For me the problem is that what your ethical questions (examples) seem to ask of me is to choose to side with one belief system over another by forcing me to make a personal decision about what it is that I value more. Do I value (A) the idea that every human is a part of the same living system and that our well-being is inter-dependent or do I value (B) the idea that the present system that relies on instant gratification is the way humans must continue living.

I think that all we need to do now is change the way we think. That's all there is to it. Its not some major revolution, its about expanding what we feel to be part of ourselves by being less self-consumed which in part depends on letting go of "B".

He doesnt care which one you choose but at least be aware that there are other thoughts out there, lol

 

[2011MS1]

In preclinical years, you'll be spending the overwhelming majority of your time learning the basic sciences/clinical principles of pathophysiology, not debating the ethics of medical practice. As an MS1/MS2, you're not really in the position to question standing practices, anyway; you won't find out what it's "really" like in healthcare until you're in the thick of it, and even then, you'll be too tired/busy studying to question the powers that be.

If you're that interested, start/join a club or elective that discusses issues that you have; don't expect ethics to be covered much in the preclinical years.

I am not expecting that anyone is going to talk ethics with me everyday. But I was expecting that when others bring up ethics as topic of discussion that it is not just opinions.

And people stop bring up the example, I am not arguing for or against it AT ALL here. I am not arguing about it period.I am just showing that there are more than one view point on that and Ethics is not just opinion. But everyone keep bring my example up as if I were advocating for or against the insurance company?????

And lastly I was just wondering about the ethical aspect of medical school education. Rather than "questioning" standard practice, I was merely inquiring about what standard practice like, and contrast it against my expectation.

 

[greatnt249]

I am not expecting that anyone is going to talk ethics with me everyday. But I was expecting that when others bring up ethics as topic of discussion that it is not just opinions.

There are few ethical quandaries that result in unequivocal determinations as to what is morally right/wrong; they're not called quandaries because they're easy to resolve. I would think you would actually appreciate that people have an opinion on issues instead of waffling around trying to solve every ethical problem they run into using logic.

What's wrong with opinions, anyway? Whenever an ethical issue that doesn't appeal to absolute morality arises, that's exactly what you're going to get...opinions (including your own, whether you like it or not). Not every metaphysical question can be resolved absolutely with logic; therefore, I suggest you learn to deal with the fact that people have opinions that are different than your own and leave it at that. You can appeal to logic all you want in your class "ethical debates," but when you seem as if you're looking down on others for not being as introspective as you, you're likely to come across as arrogant.

And lastly I was just wondering about the ethical aspect of medical school education. Rather than "questioning" standard practice, I was merely inquiring about what standard practice like, and contrast it against my expectation.

I've told you many times before that you're not likely to engage in these debates in medical school, and that you likely won't run into any actual ethical situations until you're in your clinical rotations.

 

[2011MS1]

There are few ethical quandaries that result in unequivocal determinations as to what is morally right/wrong; they're not called quandaries because they're easy to resolve. I would think you would actually appreciate that people have an opinion on issues instead of waffling around trying to solve every ethical problem they run into using logic.

What's wrong with opinions, anyway? Whenever an ethical issue that doesn't appeal to absolute morality arises, that's exactly what you're going to get...opinions (including your own, whether you like it or not). Not every metaphysical question can be resolved absolutely with logic; therefore, I suggest you learn to deal with the fact that people have opinions that are different than your own and leave it at that. You can appeal to logic all you want in your class "ethical debates," but when you seem as if you're looking down on others for not being as introspective as you, you're likely to come across as arrogant.

Nothing wrong with opinion but there are more out there than just opinion, especially when a professor specifically ask for an ethical discussion. Dont you agree with that? or when some one come up to you and specifically want to discuss the ethical dilemma in some scenario.

And lastly I was just wondering about the ethical aspect of medical school education. Rather than "questioning" standard practice, I was merely inquiring about what standard practice like, and contrast it against my expectation.

I've told you many times before that you're not likely to engage in these debates in medical school, and that you likely won't run into any actual ethical situations until you're in your clinical rotations.

This is fine, I was not disagreeing or anything but just to reiterate the original point of the post, which you asked for repetitively.

 

[greatnt249]

Nothing wrong with opinion but there are more out there than just opinion, especially when a professor specifically ask for an ethical discussion. Dont you agree with that? or when some one come up to you and specifically want to discuss the ethical dilemma in some scenario.

You don't seem to understand that any moral viewpoint is just that, an opinion, regardless of the logic behind the conclusion. You'll be hard-pressed to find many scenarios that allow for absolute answers/conclusions. Like I said before, if you're interested in keeping a discussion going without having people attack your viewpoints, simply play your viewpoint as if you're acting as the devil's advocate.

That being said, if you're not sitting in an ethics class, then don't expect people to come out of the woodwork with teleological vs. deontological arguments.

 

[apumic]

Nothing wrong with opinion but there are more out there than just opinion, especially when a professor specifically ask for an ethical discussion. Dont you agree with that? or when some one come up to you and specifically want to discuss the ethical dilemma in some scenario.

This is fine, I was not disagreeing or anything but just to reiterate the original point of the post, which you asked for repetitively.

Your opinion is your opinion. Whether you like it or not, the "logic" of the philosophers you are pining to argue over is simply their own opinions. Is there absolute truth or an a best way of doing something (ethically and morally)? Yes (by definition), assuming a given outcome is defined as "ideal." Can you or I claim to know what is absolutely true or absolutely right (with right being defined as that approach which results in the optimal outcome for all involved parties)? Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is that cognitive psychologists have repeatedly shown that human beings actually reason better when not thinking deliberately about a decision. That is, our conscious cognitive abilities are far inferior to our subconscious cognitive capacity. As a result, your peers who do not choose to argue something "rationally" may actually come up with better responses than you do despite the fact that they do not choose to work through some systematic process some dead guy came up with centuries ago. Philosophy has its place for sure, but to treat is at if it is something we should all engage in much of the time makes little sense. Discussions of ethics needn't be so technical. K.I.S.S.

 

[teenmachinery1]

What about 100$ to save someone's life in africa look at all the TV commercials asking for donation? I can certainly happen. However people wont say that is morally required. What about 100$ to save someone in front of you? most people would say that is morally required. People rarely put any thought into their decisions. It is certainly pretty "real-life". For most "case study" the way to study is to break it down into simpler concepts that can be discussed more easily.

Wrong again, Flanders.

How does this 100$ save someone's life in Africa? Does it go to the Red Cross, some renegade African Government that promises they'll buy food with it, a NGO, Hamas, or another organization? If it's an NGO, then one has to consider how well they have integrated their efforts with the government for sustainability and autonomy concerns. If it's Hamas (they indeed do good work..), then we have to be concerned as to their other agendas. They might be saving lives with your 100$ but there are other consequences here that fit into the equation. If it's the Red Cross.. well, this doesn't quite work does it? If you give 100$ to the Red Cross, they don't take 100% of this and save one person with it in some country somewhere. Your 100$ goes to overhead, administration, and so forth and then it's not like they buy a single bag of grain and put your name on it or something and give it to one person the very instant before their death via starvation. It goes to buy several bags, or it helps buy one bag (I don't know the costs here but you get my point) and the chances that the bag of grain only getting there precisely in time to save someone is not really calculable is it? This kind of ethical arithmetic/logic doesn't end up making sense or being useful... and so forth.

So.... the organization matters.

Now, does the 100$ buy grain, or drugs, or condoms, or what? If it's condoms, maybe it will indeed save a life, but this is hard to determine as well.

Anyways... this can go on forever. You get my drift. So, my point is this is not a real-life example that is worth talking about (the ops posts). It's too abstract and tangentially related to reality. Notice I didn't even mention the example about the 100$ to save someone right in front of you. wtf?

word.

 

[Spiker]

Wrong again, Flanders.

How does this 100$ save someone's life in Africa? Does it go to the Red Cross, some renegade African Government that promises they'll buy food with it, a NGO, Hamas, or another organization? If it's an NGO, then one has to consider how well they have integrated their efforts with the government for sustainability and autonomy concerns. If it's Hamas (they indeed do good work..), then we have to be concerned as to their other agendas. They might be saving lives with your 100$ but there are other consequences here that fit into the equation. If it's the Red Cross.. well, this doesn't quite work does it? If you give 100$ to the Red Cross, they don't take 100% of this and save one person with it in some country somewhere. Your 100$ goes to overhead, administration, and so forth and then it's not like they buy a single bag of grain and put your name on it or something and give it to one person the very instant before their death via starvation. It goes to buy several bags, or it helps buy one bag (I don't know the costs here but you get my point) and the chances that the bag of grain only getting there precisely in time to save someone is not really calculable is it? This kind of ethical arithmetic/logic doesn't end up making sense or being useful... and so forth.

So.... the organization matters.

Now, does the 100$ buy grain, or drugs, or condoms, or what? If it's condoms, maybe it will indeed save a life, but this is hard to determine as well.

Anyways... this can go on forever. You get my drift. So, my point is this is not a real-life example that is worth talking about (the ops posts). It's too abstract and tangentially related to reality. Notice I didn't even mention the example about the 100$ to save someone right in front of you. wtf?

word.

Wow man you need at least use just a little imagination to see where it could very well be applicable to what you may be dealing with. Money can save someone in african, it doesnt matter how you know it can happen. Money can save a person's life and I am just simplifying the situation. Why do I have to give you an absolute "real" amount, or exactly how it is done? The ethical question is: if amount of money or distance matters. Is extending a person's life for a year for 100$ morally required?? For 100000$? In Britain one is yes one is no. Is that real in enough for you? or do I have to give you a patient's name, or the same of the disease, or the city where it is happening?


The general theme is that you make a small sacrifice for the great benefit of another(life and death). Do you have to make that sacrifice? does it matter how much of the sacrifice? Or how close are you to the person who you can potentially save? There is legitimate need for theory and generalization, just so you can be consistent. It is not practical to just consider each case as unique and no previous thoughts can apply.

It is very ignorant of you to assume that all hypothetical situations as useless and un-applicable in real life. And that the only way to answer questions is casuistry. It is almost like you are saying that studying human models are useless because everyone is slightly different.

 

[greatnt249]

Wow man you need at least use just a little imagination to see where it could very well be applicable to what you may be dealing with. Money can save someone in african, it doesnt matter how you know it can happen. Money can save a person's life and I am just simplifying the situation. Why do I have to give you an absolute "real" amount, or exactly how it is done? The ethical question is: if amount of money or distance matters. Is extending a person's life for a year for 100$ morally required?? For 100000$? In Britain one is yes one is no. Is that real in enough for you? or do I have to give you a patient's name, or the same of the disease, or the city where it is happening?


The general theme is that you make a small sacrifice for the great benefit of another(life and death). Do you have to make that sacrifice? does it matter how much of the sacrifice? Or how close are you to the person who you can potentially save? There is legitimate need for theory and generalization, just so you can be consistent. It is not practical to just consider each case as unique and no previous thoughts can apply.

It is very ignorant of you to assume that all hypothetical situations as useless and un-applicable in real life. And that the only way to answer questions is casuistry. It is almost like you are saying that studying human models are useless because everyone is slightly different.

1. There is no theme; the OP explicitly stated that.
2. You're neglecting the idea of direct vs. indirect moral obligations.

 

[Spiker]

1. There is no theme; the OP explicitly stated that.
2. You're neglecting the idea of direct vs. indirect moral obligations.

So it is something to be discussed rather than labeling it as fake and doesnt matter.

 

[greatnt249]

So it is something to be discussed rather than labeling it as fake and doesnt matter.

No, I'm just saying that if you're going to continue down this road (despite the OP's insistence that you don't) you could at least not create false dichotomies and wild assumptions.

 

[Eyti]

He doesnt care which one you choose but at least be aware that there are other thoughts out there, lol

lol yeah I know other people must place everything in a slightly different order of importance. For me the underlying thought is the maximum exposure of all things beautiful in humans and hoping that this gets people to finally believe in their ability as a species. It is a lot of wishful, but not unrealistic, thinking.

 

[greatnt249]

lol yeah I know other people must place everything in a slightly different order of importance. For me the underlying thought is the maximum exposure of all things beautiful in humans and hoping that this gets people to finally believe in their ability as a species. It is a lot of wishful, but not unrealistic, thinking.

Say what?

 

[Eyti]

Say what?

Well to me the question that we're answering is how do we value "the perceived economic safety of the system" in relation to "human life" and even life/health of the planet in general. That is my underlying thought when faced with any question that involves the direction of society in some way or what others may describe as a dilemma.