2022

Case studies from Consequentialist,

Deontology and Care ethics Perspectives

Everyday Ethics and Constitutional Values

GROUP 14

Anchal Saxena (M2021WS001), Danish (M2021ODC008)

Pranav (M2021RPG011), Shikha Bisen (M2021ODC035), Shiv
Shanker D (M2021WPG014), Shubham Dixit (M2021ED024)
 Table of Content

Sr. No Content

1. Introduction to theories

a. Consequentialism

b. Deontology

c. Ethics of Care

2. Case studies from Consequentialist, Deontology and Care ethics Perspectives

Case #1: The case of consent in trials of underage children

Case #2: The ethical dilemma behind the abortion and MTP act

Case #3: Visiting the dying mother in his last moments suffering from Covid
19
1.Introduction to theories

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory concerned with the end rather than the means. It
focuses on the consequences of an action rather than the act itself. For a consequentialist, the
value of the Right to free speech lies in its products. A consequentialist restricts the freedom
of individuals if the consequence is not good. Consequentialists believe that if any action
produces more good than harm, the step is good. Consequentialists are utilitarian when they
regard that the greater good occurs more often than, the greater evil, then the action is
good.(Ethics unwrapped, 2022)

The utilitarian perspective believes that the only aspect of the results of an action that matters
is the amount of pleasure or pain it causes to people. They think that pleasure and pain can’t
be measured on a single scale. “The consequentialist rejects any constraints on maximizing
welfare, which means there is no place for rights, duties, and respect for individual persons”
(Everett et al., 2018). On the contrary, Hedonism is more concerned with pleasure than pain.

What is Consequentialism: Consequentialism was developed by several

philosophers like Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Amartya Sen.

The utilitarianism theory of Jeremy Bentham was based on determining which actions were
most likely to make people happy. If happiness is defined as the experience of pleasure
without pain, the most ethical efforts result in the most significant amount of happiness while
causing the least amount of pain.

John Stuart Mill thought we should determine which rules would produce the most happiness
over time and apply them to every situation. This was his utilitarianism rule theory.
According to this theory, it would be unethical to rashly drive a car at night even if the road is
clear and the chances of people getting injured are minimal.

Amartya Sen said that Rights shouldn’t be understood in terms of duties we must adhere to
when we act. They should be understood in terms of the goal that every person should be able
to live a life of basic dignity and autonomy. Rights are a way of evaluating the consequences
of an action and not the action itself “Consequentialism is most usually considered
utilitarianism when conjoined with hedonism and the conjunction of what Amartya Sen has
called ‘welfarism’(Kupperman, 1981).

Deontology

Introduction:

Deontology is a theory of ethics. Ethics is hard to describe since it differs from one
individual to the next. The established standards of good and bad describe what people in
a society should and should not do. What society believes to be bad may become good to
a person in specific circumstances. As members of society, humans enjoy a variety of
rights and privileges.

What is Deontology Theory in Ethics?

Deontology is formed from the Greek terms deon (obligation) and logos (duty) (study or
discourse). As a result, deontology is also known as obligation-based ethics or duty-based
ethics.

Deontological ethics is a person's moral viewpoint on the laws and limits for an activity.
Deontology Consequentialism emphasizes the correctness or incorrectness of action
rather than the correctness or incorrectness of the results of such activities. It also ignores
virtue ethics, which is a person's behavior or character.

The emphasis is consequently on moral law norms that permit and prohibit action
independent of the results or aim.

Here are some illustrations of deontology ethics:

Parents, for example, should provide for their child's basic requirements such as food,
clothes, and a stable life. The parent is conscious that stealing is prohibited and that if
detected, they would face punishment. If their household is starving, their need to provide
for their family comes first. A fascinating outcome of deontological ethics is the
separation between cognitive and conative states. A person may feel that a particular
behavior has positive or bad consequences. The fact that they are aware that their actions
are wicked or evil does not mean that they want to do evil when they carry them out. In
other words, beliefs and intentions are not the same thing. The individual is ready to
accept the bad repercussions of their actions because of their circumstances. Individuals
 are required to behave even though they know it is incorrect in order to do their duty; they
focus on their task rather than the influence it has on others.

Some Examples of Deontology Ethics:

Parents, for example, should provide for their child's basic requirements such as food,
clothes, and a stable life. The parent is conscious that stealing is prohibited and that if
detected, they would face punishment. If their household is starving, their need to provide
for their household takes priority above the moral precept of not taking what is not theirs.

Another illustration of deontological ethical ethics is the obligation to protect one's kids.
If anybody breaks into their house to abduct their child, they might shoot the kidnapper.
They are mindful that shooting may risk a human life. For the parent, however, the urge
to protect what is theirs is important; they are indifferent about the consequences on
others.

The concepts on which deontologists focus may differ. For most deontological views,
justice, rights, and responsibilities are universal. Deontologists' perspectives on
certain ideas may differ. Justice, right, and obligations are universal in most
deontological perspectives.

Deontological Theory Come in Several Varieties:

Agent-cent red Deontological Theories: Humans, according to agent-centered

deontological theories, have responsibilities and permissions that give them with agent-
relative / objective motives for conduct.

Patient-Centered Deontological Concepts: Patient-centered duty - based theories are

focused on right instead of duties. The patient-centered Deontology bans taking a human's
life without first gaining their consent in order to save five people. Agent-centered
Deontology, on the other hand, would allow the killing in order to rescue the five people
if it was essential to do so.

Kantian ethics: Kantianism are morality that is universal and applicable to all humans
depending on context or circumstance. These rules are referred to as Categorical
Imperative by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and that they are characterised by
their moral and sense of freedom.

That thought inspired Kant's earliest formulation of the categorical imperative: "act
entirely in conformity with the that maxim by that you may concurrently desire that it
become a universal rule" (Groundwork 4:421). The first articulation of the categorical
imperative assumes that moral rules are universal laws.

Is deontologist the greatest fit in a complex healthcare system, and how can healthcare
providers implement deontological ethical treatment in practice? Deontologist has a wide
variety of scientific applications.
 The Ethics of Care

The moral theory or the ethics of care inferred moral significance in human life's fundamental
elements of relationships and dependencies. Care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by
intertextuality and promote caregivers' and receivers' wellbeing in a network of social
relations. It is defined as the practice involving the maintenance of the world and satisfying
the needs of others and ourselves. It gives motivation to care for people that are dependent or
vulnerable. The ethics of care perspective stands in obvious contrast to ethical theories that
rely on principles to highlight moral actions such as Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, and
justice theory. It is a feminist approach to ethics, which challenges the traditional moral
theories as male centric and problematic to the extent they downplay values and virtues
culturally associated with women or with roles that are cast as feminine. The feminist ethics
also recognises the rules must be applied in a context considering that real life moral decision
making is dominated by the relationships one has with the people around us.

What is the care of Ethics?

The early strains of care ethics can be detected in the writings of feminist philosophers such
as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine and Harriet Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins, it was first
most explicitly articulated in the early writings of Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings.

Gilligan asserted that the care perspective was an alternative and equally legitimate form of
moral reasoning obscured by masculing liberal justice traditions focused on autonomy and
independence. Noddings developed the idea of care as feminine ethic and applied it in the
practice of moral education. Nodding identified caring as, caring for which is the application
of caring services and caring about is the intention of caring. (Sander, 2022)

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Case studies from Consequentialist, Deontology and
Care ethics Perspectives

Case #1 The case of consent in trials of underage children:

Consider the research for evaluating the coronavirus vaccination for children of age 6 months
to 14 years old, a research study involves youngsters who have not reached the legal consent
age. Normal ethical research practice entails gaining parental or guardian approval, as well as
the kid's assent if the youngster is cognitively capable of comprehending the specifics of the
research study. (Dutta, 2022)

Dilemma: -When a parent or guardian offers authorization for a kid's

involvement but the child refuses to participate, an ethical quandary arises. Should the
researcher include the youngster in the study without first obtaining his or her
permission?

● Stakeholders- Researchers, Children (6 months-14 years), Parents, Society

A Consequentialist Perspective: According to the Consequentialists, if the

action produces better than harm, the step is considered good.

In this case, all the children are under 14 and have not fully developed their cognitive
abilities. Therefore, it is assumed that the parents can decide for them. The children are not
fully aware of the importance of the research and how it will be helpful for society.

From a utilitarian perspective, the vaccination trial should occur with the parents’ consent. It
would protect the larger population of children from any harmful effects of the vaccine.
However, if the children have any kind of allergy or infection, the vaccination trial would
harm them. After considering all these perspectives, ethical decisions should be taken based
on the realistic view of ensuring greater good and minimal harm to the children.

A Deontological perspective: The answer would be “No” if Kant's

deontological ethical theory were applied to this case. Involving a non-assenting youngster in
research to enhance science's "better good" may fit within a utilitarian ethical framework, but
it does not reflect Kant's categorical imperative to never use an individual purely as a means
to an end.

According to Kant's deontological stance, children under the age of consent should only
participate in scientific experiments if they offer unambiguous assent and their parent or
guardian consents. The same rules apply to other vulnerable populations who may be unable
to provide personal permission.

The application of ethical theory of Kant’s is to inform the clients about the medical blunder.
There are various obstacles like the embarrassment of the error, lack of training on
communicating with the clients and fear of litigation. The provider may come to a conclusion
that bringing up the issue might create more harm than good. Saying the truth to the patients
is what the patients want from a physician which will show the respect towards the patients.
Apologizing to the patients might restore trust, dignity and relieving the client distress.
(Cholbi, 2015)

Ethics of care perspective: In this perspective, children should not be included

in the clinical trial of vaccines as they cannot provide consent so it is important to minimize
the risks to which they are exposed in research. Also, they need to be vaccinated to provide
benefits, as they are vulnerable to infection according to the parents care perspective. For
clinical research consent of both children and parents is needed.

Case #2:-The ethical dilemma behind the abortion and

MTP act

In 2017, a woman in Maharashtra of age 37 approached the Supreme court to terminate her
26 week old foetus. The reason was that the child was detected with down syndrome which
will cause physical and mental health issues to the mother and the child. However the court
rejected the plea on the note of delayed period of termination. Also the court found no threat
to the life of mother and the foetus. Usually the foetus with down syndrome is terminated
when the gestation period is less than 20 weeks. On the record the Supreme court ordered to
continue with the pregnancy while on off the record they were sad on giving birth to a
mentally retarded child. (Sasi, 2019)

● Stakeholders: -37-year-old women, New born baby, Husband, Society, Supreme

Court.

A Consequentialist Perspective : Barbara Levy, Vice President for

Health Policy and Advocacy at the American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, said, "We worry a lot about vulnerable babies, [but] we don't care
enough about what could be catastrophic for women." (Sawicki, 2017).

According to the utilitarian perspective, the only aspect of the results of an action that
matters is the amount of pleasure or pain it causes to people.

In the case of Pregnant women, if she gives birth to a child with down syndrome. The
well-being and welfare of both the parents and child will be compromised, and there
is a high possibility that the child will never live everyday life. They will have to face
many difficulties performing day-to-day life actions throughout their life.

A consequentialist ignores all the abiding rules on the maximization of welfare. A

consequentialist would not consider that the act of aborting a child with down
syndrome is wrong; instead, it would focus on the welfare of the parents.

A Deontological Perspective: The Court's ruling is based on the

Medical Termination Pregnancy Act, which permits women to terminate pregnancy
between the ages of 12 and 24 weeks after consulting with two doctors. However, the
Court's decision has an impact on the parents' mental health as well as the newborn
child's physical health. The categorical imperative basically universalizes everyone
regardless of circumstances or goals; if it is ethically desirable for everyone to do it,
rather than just one being, Kantian principles allow for it. Before adopting a Kantian
viewpoint, one must first identify where life begins (conception? six weeks? first
heartbeat? at birth?).

● If one believes that life begins at conception, abortion at any stage of pregnancy
would be considered unethical and wrong.

● If one believes that life begins when a heartbeat is detected, then abortion would
be considered immoral and wrong solely from that point forward; and so on.

● This is supported by evidence straight from the categorical imperative — if one

thinks that killing a neighbor, parent, or kid is not acceptable, then killing a
zygote/embryo/foetus is considered unethical.

● Mothers Point of view: If you asked a 37-year-old woman if she could want for
other women to have abortions and she said "yes," it would be permissible for her
to have one. If the answer is "no," it would be immoral for her to have an abortion.
As can be seen, the two deontological/Kantian theories have a lot of grey area.
According to Kantian theory, someone who considers abortion to be wrong cannot
morally kill in self-defense.

● Husband Point of view: If the husband's intents in obtaining an abortion reflect a

desire to evade responsibility to one's own offspring or a failure to value human
life, the deontologist would certainly oppose abortion. On the other hand, if his
motivations were based on the possible welfare of the kid or oneself, the
deontologist might support abortion.

Ethics of care perspective: The termination could be allowed so that

the woman and husband do not have to go into various physical and mental stress
after the child is born in taking care of the child. And the physical and mental pain
would be for a short time or a few periods of time after the termination.

● Parents might have undergone various physical and mental stress because of
taking care of the child with down syndrome and other societal stress. Care ethics
assumes that context can sometimes overrule justice and our universal code of
 conduct. The approach focuses more on the interrelation of humanity. It places a
moral significance on our relationships as care-givers and care-receivers. Care
Ethics considers acts that improve a person's well-being through attentive,
competent, responsive, and responsible care to be morally acceptable. The main
focus of the theory is to provide help to the needy and to avoid unnecessary
suffering, thus relating it to the MTP Act; termination is allowed to avoid
unnecessary suffering to both the parents and the child or foetus. Care ethics is
often connected to the feminist movement as many ideas can be used to argue for
gender equality and women's self-determination rights.

● In case of pregnancy termination, the life of a person is more important, as Ethics

of care do not allow suffering, and without abortion, a woman’s life would be
filled with economic as well as psychological complications.

● Care ethics emphasizes on the health and well-being of a person. The MTP Act
which allows termination in case of syndrome in a foetus, will avoid suffering to
the child and parents in the future

Case #3 Visiting the dying mother in his last moments

suffering from Covid 19

The case of Trisha, whose situation is relatable to many people in the country over the last
year. Her mother was taken to the hospital after a fall when the COVID cases were rising in
the area. She developed fever and five days later she was readmitted for Covid-19 though,
there was no need for a ventilator or to admit her in ICU. The hospital was filled by covid
patients and most of them tested positive with a new mutant variant which is highly
contagious. Her mother had a shattered leg which was the result of earlier mishap. Trisha got
to know about it later when her mother was admitted for Covid. The chance of getting
recovered is less because of her risk factor of Covid or the orthopedic surgery. Trisha was
next of kin by her mother. This made her sad that she knew that her mother was in pain and
close to death every single day. The feeling for her mother also increased as the current
situation of her mother and the lockdown was in effect for more than a year which stopped
her from visiting her mother at least once (Greenhalgh, 2021).

● Stakeholders:-Trisha, Mother, Her husband, People who can get affected.

Dilemma:Two extremes are there in this situation. One is to visit her dying mother
who’s request is to meet Trisha. If she doesn't meet her that would not only make the mother
sad but also place an emotional stress in Trisha as she couldn’t fulfill the request of her
mother who made her the next kin.

Another extreme is that she could become a carrier of the virus after the visit. Trisha is a
cancer survivor whose age is over 60. Her husband has risk factors for poor prognosis. And
with the new variant which is more contagious, the chance of getting infected is very high. If
she visits her mother and she becomes the carrier, and if someone gets infected or dies in her
current location, then this would also create an emotional stress of blaming her for her visit
for someone’s death.

What would happen if the intention of visiting her mother results in the death of someone in
her surrounding who would have lived. She knows the risks or the possible consequences
that would happen after the visit. Even she could get affected even if she does follow all the
protocols. (Cave, 2020).

Consequentialist Perspective: According to the utilitarian perspective, the

only aspect of the results of an action that matters is the amount of pleasure or pain it causes
to people. Philosopher Ted Lockhart argued that only morally permissible actions should
only be performed. The mother is severely ill after being diagnosed with Covid-19; apart
from having a fractured leg, the situation worsens.

If she chooses a consequentialist perspective, the question is whether it is morally permissible

for her to visit her ill mother, considering that she has a high chance of being affected by
Covid-19. In such a scenario, she would choose her life over her mother since the possibility
of the mother’s death is high considering the co-morbidities. She has a longer life span than
her mother, so from the consequentialist perspective, she should preserve her life and refrain
from visiting the hospital to see her deceased mother. The consequentialist rejects any
constraints on maximizing welfare, which means that there is no place for rights, duties, and
respect for individual persons (Everett et al., 2018). A consequentialist would not consider
that the daughter must look after her mother but instead would focus on the number of lives
that can be saved. If more lives were saved, then a consequentialist would try to prevent the
more significant, and thus, in this case, keeping the daughter's life would reduce the loss.

A Deontological perspective: -
From a Deontological standpoint:

According to Kant's Theory of Pure Reason, ethical problems like "What else should she do?
It is impossible to provide a response just by posing queries such as "What else does she
know?" Specific activities, like seeing a dying loved person, may be fundamentally good,
while others are essentially bad. The belief that limits on visiting to Covid19 patients really
aren't founded on pragmatic ideals that compromise patient', families’, Individuals and staff's
well-being for the larger welfare (ideally) of a bigger community than far away. As a result,
such measures are divisive, and those who are most directly impacted may be susceptible.

If she decides to depend on deontology to settle her ethical doubt about seeing her mom,

• She should decide if she is driven largely by a sense of family responsibility to ease
her pain (even as she raises her own) or by a wish to really be self-sufficient. It is used
to gain some self-control and also to keep one’s personal morals in check. If it's the
first instance, dental instances begin to pile up in support of his presence.
• Nevertheless, Kant's categorical imperative is also pertinent to abiotic rationale: "I
shouldn't ever behave unless in such a manner that I may as well desire my credo to
be a universal rule."
• Individually, the hazards of the evaluation are minor and definitely surpass the
humanitarian advantages, but SARSCoV2 (a virus causing Covid19) doesn't really
spread uniformly. Many infected persons do not transmit anybody else, whereas a tiny
fraction infect a large number of others, a situation called as excess dispersion.
• Because of extremely high over-dispersal factor, ten percent of infected individuals,
termed as super-spreaders, could be responsible for up to 80percent of total of
secondary transmitting instances. Even though she is improbable to transfer the
disease (since she recognizes the importance of wearing a correctly fitting mask and
rigidly self-isolating for at least 10 days following the visit. Since she resides in a safe
enough environment, others that have taken the same measures may well be reluctant
unable to do so. It may have been her responsibility to set the example and remain
distant.
Ethics of care perspective: Practical rationality considers moral judgments
rooted in everyday social practices. Feminist philosophers, in contrast, have argued that
emotions are a crucial component of analytical rationality.

Whilst she initially stated that it was right for her to visit, she was eventually guided to the
opposite conclusion not by an impassive appraisal of facts or formal value hierarchies but by
a further wave of emotional responses, this time directed towards her husband.

In the care ethics perspective, the choice of visiting her mother is correct which the femist
views in the article suggested. It is a critical situation of choosing a mother or the spread of a
virus and the chances of meeting either of the sides would equally affect the other. But
visiting her dying mother with proper protection gear and following the protocols of Covid-
19 would certainly help to minimize the risk of spread of virus. This decision will also help to
get rid of guilt, anger, pain and other emotions which arise if she doesn't visit her mother and
her mother passes away. In the perspective of feminist philosophy, moral compulsion which
over-ride emotions and diverts personal commitments might be vices and not virtues.

***************************************************************************

References:
Academy, Saylor. (n.d). The business Ethics Workshop.
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-business-ethics-workshop/s08-06-ethics-of-care.html

Britannica. (2022). Normative ethics. https://www.britannica.com/topic/normative-ethics

Cave E. (2020). COVID-19 Super-spreaders: Definitional Quandaries and Implications.

Asian bioethics review, 12(2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00118-2

Cholbi M. (2015). Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air. Journal of medical
ethics, 41(8), 607–610.https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101781
De Panfilis, L., Di Leo, S., Peruselli, C. et al. (2019). “I go into crisis when …”: ethics of
care and moral dilemmas in palliative care. BMC Palliat Care18, 70
.https://bmcpalliatcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12904-019-0453-2#Sec14

Dutta. Sumi Kukanya. (2022). Huge response to COVID-19 shots for 12-14 age group;
private hospitals keep away. Money control.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/health-trends/huge-response-to-covid-19-shots-
for-12-14-age-group-private-hospitals-keep-away-8264351.html

Ethics unwrapped. (2022) Consequentialism. McCombs School of Business- The University

of Texas at Austin. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism

Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being
consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 79(August), 200–
216.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004

Greenhalgh, Trisha. (2021). Moral uncertainty: A case study of Covid-19. Patient Education
and Counseling. ELSEVIER.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073839912100481X?via%3Dihub

Kupperman, J. J. (1981). A Case for Consequentialism. American Philosophical Quarterly,

18(4), 305–313. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20013928

Misselbrook D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and deontology. The British journal of general practice
: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 63(609), 211.
https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X665422

Moderna’s Phase. (2022). Moderna’sPhaseII/III Covid-19 vaccine trial in kids meets end
point. Clinical Trials Arena. https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/moderna-vaccine-trial-
kids/

Noble, H., Price, J. E., & Porter, S. (2015). The challenge to health professionals when carers
resist truth telling at the end of life: a qualitative secondary analysis. Journal of clinical
nursing, 24(7-8), 927–936.https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12634
Playford, R. C., Roberts, T., & Playford, E. D. (2015). Deontological and utilitarian ethics: a
brief introduction in the context of disorders of consciousness. Disability and rehabilitation,
37(21), 2006–2011. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.989337

Sander, Maureen. (2022). Care Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer Reviewd
Academic Resource. https://iep.utm.edu/care-ethics/

Sasi, Aiswarya. (2019). Ethical Issues concerning Legislation in Later-Term Abortions in

India. PMC PubMed Central. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7747435/

Sawicki, Nadia N. (2017). Fetal Consequentialism and Maternal Mortality. Bill of Health:
Examining the intersection of Helath, Law, Biotechnology, and Bioethics.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/05/16/fetal-consequentialism-and-maternal-
mortality/

Tushti, Pande. (n.d). Kedarnathsingh v. state of Bihar. Legal servie India E- Journal.
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3455-kedarnath-singh-v-state-of-bihar.html

Zahedi F. (2011). The challenge of truth telling across cultures: a case study. Journal of
medical ethics and history of medicine, 4, 11.