Memorandum

To: Ms. Shelnutt

From: Ryan Waite
Date: February 11, 2021
Subject: Project 1: Ethics Memo

Case Summary
Anthony is researching emerging technologies in regenerative medicine. While on his
way home from work, he mentions his job to a man on the train and ends up explaining
that his research could lead to developments of potential treatments and therapies. The
man says that he is more than willing to sign up for the study if it will help him regain his
ability to walk, going as far as to mention that he will sign up for any testing even if his
safety is not guaranteed.

Audience Profile
The primary audience is the head of regenerative research that oversees the research
that Anthony is working on. He is overseeing and working on this research for the
greater good of humanity. The secondary audience is the other researchers helping
Anthony with his work.

The Objective of my Message

My message's objective is to persuade the head of regenerative research, Jack Watson,
as Anthony, to allow the man, Kevin bond, to sign up for the study that could harm him.

Ethical Implications
I will list out why any particular option is ethically good, bad, or neutral, based on the
questions on the assignment page for this project and how I understand the ethical
philosophy in question. For each option, I will list if the option is ethically sound in order
of the Rights Approach or Kantian Ethics, the Common Good Approach, the Justice
Approach, the Virtue Approach, and the Utilitarian Approach.
Memorandum

To: Dr. Jack Watson

From: Dr. Anthony
Date: February 13, 2021
Subject: Project 1: Ethics Memo

Relevant Facts and Primary Stakeholders

On my way home the other day, I ran into someone, Kevin Bond, who wants to sign up
for testing regarding our research. He lost his ability to walk and said he would do
anything to regain it, even if it shortens his life span. Of course, the primary
stakeholders are everyone involved in our field of regenerative medicine, including you
and me, and Mr. Bond, as the person this discussion is about. As you are the head of
research, you have the final say in what goes on around here so, I have thought of a few
options for what we can do.

First Option
The first option is to let him join us in our research and perform tests on him. As a
scientist, I have an ethical responsibility to help this man since this is my field of study,
and we could improve many lives. As such, I say that we should let him sign up for
testing as long as: he is mentally sound, that either a psychiatrist or psychologist could
check, he knows all of the risks involved in us performing the tests on him, and he signs
the appropriate waver checked over by our lawyer just in case something unexpected
happens. I do not believe it is wrong to provide hope as long as he knows the risks and
possibilities of both success and failure.

From a Kantian ethics approach, as long as we respect his rights as a human and as long
as we do not use him as a mere means to an end that is regenerative research, this
option is good. Based on the Common Good Approach, this is good since it could
improve regenerative medicine that could benefit many people who could also regain
the ability to walk. Based on the Justice Approach, if we allow him to join, we would
have to let anyone join, which does not sound too bad as long as we follow the same
procedure for each person that could join, so from that standpoint, this is a neutral
option. Based on the Virtue Approach, I want to be the kind of person who helps those
in need, so I chose regenerative medicine as my field of study, so from that standpoint,
this is a good option. Based on the Utilitarian Approach, since the only way
Dr. Jack Watson
February 13, 2021
Page 2

to do the least harm would be not to allow him to sign up for testing since it could harm
him with no certainty of doing good in the world.
Second Option
The second option is not to allow him to participate in the tests because he is so
desperate. Due to how desperate he, it is possible he might attempt tests on himself
without our supervision, which could easily lead to harm to himself and possibly others
as well. I doubt he would, but you can never be too careful in science or medicine.

From a Kantian ethics approach, this option is also good since we would be respecting
his rights as a human and since we are not using him as a means. Based on the Common
Good Approach, this is not good since it would not lead to any advancements in
regenerative medicine to help the people of the world. Based on the Justice Approach,
this option is also neutral since as long as we follow suit with everyone else who wants
to join, we would be treating everyone equally. Based on the Virtue Approach, this
option is not good since I want to be the kind of person who helps those in need, and
this would not allow me to do that. Based on the Utilitarian Approach, this would be
good since this would lead to the least harm to all involved.

Third Option
The third option is to put him on a waiting list until the research advances enough for
the tests to be less dangerous. The main issue with this option is if the study takes too
long to progress to the point where the tests are less harmful.

From a Kantian ethics approach, this option is good since we would not be using him as
a means, and we would be respecting his rights. Based on the Common Good Approach,
this is neutral since it could lead to regenerative advancements if the research advances
quickly enough. Based on the Justice Approach, this option is also good since we could
treat everyone the same. Based on the Virtue Approach, this option is neutral since this
would allow me to be the type of person I want to be. Based on the Utilitarian
Approach, this would be good since this would reduce the harm of the tests while also
providing the community's best good.
Dr. Jack Watson
February 13, 2021
Page 3

Conclusion
I believe the best option would be the first one since it would allow me to be the best
person I can be while also respecting his rights. It could also lead to advancements in
regenerative medicine that could help others just like Mr. Bond. The third option's
benefits are based heavily on how far and how quickly we can advance our research.
Due to this, I believe this is a decent option but not the best option. The second option
is my least preferred option since it would lead to no possible advancements
whatsoever, but I understand it is the safest option. In conclusion, I believe the first
option is the best option for advancing our research of regenerative medicine while also
helping out Mr. Kevin Bond.