help on paper

[poker1O1]

So I have to write a paper on an ethical dilemma, and start with one of the following passages and explain why it is a dilemma (obvious part) and then explain what you would do. There's not much room for "fancy" answers either.

[ QUOTE ]
#1 You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You're inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren't sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
#4 The Partiality of Friendship - Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I have to pick one to write about. So which would you pick, and give reasoning for what decision you'd make. (Please include the # as well)

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You're inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren't sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you do have to report if a client threatens criminal action...

interesting that it's an ethics class you're asking help on

This is from an Australian articel, but US laws are similar I think, basically if they threaten future action you can break the privilige to protect others:

[ QUOTE ]
The other qualification is this: that there are certain limited circumstances in which if they learn of a specific threat to an individual, or to a class of individuals, they have an ethical and probably a legal obligation also to disclose that information in such a way as to protect the people at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure about the details though, so i don't know how serious of a threat it has to be

[Snupoker]

The easiest answer is paper #1. You have no choice 1 < 2.

[doug funnie]

2 is by far the funniest, I say do that.

[Requin]

#1 or #2 is easy, just argue a utilitarian view of how its the end result that matters and not who actually perfors the action. For added bulk, you can into an argument on how any rational person who can forsee the consequences of his/her actions is morally responsible for ensuring the best possible result, not for performing the best moral action. You could probably post this in the philosophy forum and have someone pretty much write this for you.

[keikiwai]

#2 SIIHP and then *BOOM*?

Although I'm sure everyone in the cave would also get blown to smithereens and the cave would collaps on the survivors.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You're inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren't sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?

[/ QUOTE ]

In many states, you ARE required to warn (stemming from a decards old ruling in Tarasoff v. Regents of Some Place in California That I'm Not Going to Look Up Because I Think It Is Mildly Funnier to Do It This Way).

Some states explicity shield docs against suits based on breech of confidentiality.

In your particular example, the only ambiguity rises because you say "you are inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but aren't sure". That is the only reason why this is not a slam dunk. In your case, the fact that you aren't sure inclines me toward reporting.

In cases where you are more sure, I consider failure to issue a Tarasoff warning as grossly unethical.

The patient-doctor confidentiality privilege is not remotely absolute. I've certainly broken it, and I'm not sure that anyone would even think twice about most of the occasions.

[poker1O1]

[ QUOTE ]
interesting that it's an ethics class you're asking help on

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not an ethics class, actually accounting, but the the subject of the paper is ethical dilemma's.
For what it's worth, I have chosen #4 because I think I can put a lot of content (aka B.S.) into it.

[Requiem1010]

#2 viewed from the perspective of an act utilitarian would be the easiest thing to write about in the history of stupid papers you have to write in college.

[poker1O1]

I probably didn't include the most interesting one, which was
[ QUOTE ]
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

[/ QUOTE ]