Section:

Schedule:
Group #
Members:
ACTIVTY 2
Please answer the questions in each case. The submission will be the same
with the previous activity that only representative of each group needs to turn in the
activity. The deadline of submission will be on January 19, 2023.
Case 1
Jose is a military doctor assigned in a war-torn village in Maguindanao. He
studied in a state university in the city and was a consistent student leader during his
college days. He earned his degree through a scholarship sponsored by Amnesty
International. One-night, soft knocks awakened him. When he opened the door, a
severely wounded man asked for his help. He got serious gunshot wounds on his right
leg and left shoulder. He brought the wounded man in his clinic, and while attending to
him, the man fell unconscious. Days passed and the man slowly recovered. He
introduced himself as Ka David and admitted to him his affiliation to the leftists. Ka
David divulged his mission to Dr. Jose in exchange of the latter’s promise not to turn
him over to military. Ka David’s mission is to penetrate the town’s municipal hall and
abduct the mayor.
He explained that his mission was part of the plan to charge and put into trial the
mayor before the People’s Court for crimes of corruption, illegal gambling, illegal drugs,
abuse of power, immorality, among others. He got wounded in a crossfire, but his
identity remains undisclosed to the military. Dr. Jose knew very well that the town’s
mayor is the most corrupt official in the province controlling illegal drugs, gambling dens,
and hoarding a horde of goons as his protectors. If Ka David would succeed in
abducting the mayor, the latter would surely be summarily executed by the rebels.
However, as a military doctor, he has pledged to always uphold the laws of the land and
the plan to abduct and execute the mayor by the organization of Ka David is a clear
violation of human rights, and transgression of the Constitution.
1. If you were in the shoes of Dr. Jose, what would you do and why? What ethical
theory would justify your answer? Why?
2. Does Jose have a duty or obligation reveal the plans to his superior in this case?
Why or why not?
3. If Jose is not involved in military, should he squeal the plan to the authority? Does it
make a difference in what Jose should do whether or not he his affiliated to military?
Why or why not?
Case 2
You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an
accident. When you arrive, you see that the car belongs to your wife. You rush over to
see her. She is trapped in her car with another man. She sees you and although barely
conscious, she manages to say the words “I’m sorry…” You don’t understand, but her
look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been
having an affair. You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told
you.
As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife
is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. However, even if she gets
attention, there’s a very high chance she’ll die. You look at the seat next to her and see
her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck, and you need to stem the
flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your
wife will definitely die. If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death
despite the fact it could have been avoided.
1. Who would you choose to work on and why?
2. What ethical theory you would use to justify your answer?
3. Would you still love your wife if you manage to save her? Why?
4. If you save the man she had an affair with, would you press charges?

Case 3
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has
been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are
scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. You
are a police officer in charge with the investigation. You have used all conventional
methods to make him divulge the location of the bombs, but these are all futile.
He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect him of his right
against self-incrimination. In exasperation, a high-level official suggests torture. This
would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to
do in this desperate situation.
1. Do you agree with the official and why?
2. What ethical theory will you use to justify your answer?
3. Do you think human rights are absolute or can they be undermined when it is
necessary? Why?
Case 4
Ken is a doctor. One of his patients, whom he has diagnosed as HIV positive, is
about to receive a blood transfusion prior to being released from the hospital. He has
told Ken, in the confidence of their doctor-patient relationship, that after he gets his
transfusion, and his medicine from Ken, he intends to infect as many people as possible
with HIV starting that evening. Because Ken is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality,
there is no legal way to stop this man from carrying out his plan. Even if Ken warned the
police, they would not be able to arrest him, since his medical information is protected.
It occurs to Ken that he could contaminate his medication by putting an untraceable
poison in it that will kill him before he gets a chance to infect others.
1. Should Ken poison this man in order to prevent him from spreading HIV and
why?
2. What ethical theory you can use to justify your answer?
3. If Ken did poison his patient, should he resign from his profession for what he
did? Why or why not?
4. Should medical information and the doctor-patient relationship be underminable
or should it always be under the veil absolute patient to doctor confidentiality and
why?

Case 5
You are the manager of a company which employs around 300 employees.
Likewise, the company has employed you for over 20 years until you have reached your
current position. However, due to recent economic regressions coupled with poor
business conjectures, the company is now in the brink of bankruptcy.
A potential multinational investor is eyed by the Board of Trustees and perceived
to be the answer to the present business predicament. As the senior manager of the
company, you are tasked to meet and negotiate with the said investor. You have never
failed a single business negotiation before, so the BOT is looking forward for you in
closing such business deal, and eventually save the “dying” company.
On your way to the meeting place, you were already late, the traffic is terrible,
and so, you decided to take a short cut. The short cut is an uncommon road where very
few vehicles pass. Few meters before you make your last turn, you saw an accident.
The accident involved your best friend who, during the lowest point of your life, provided
you and your family considerable financial help. Your best friend is still conscious, but
his head is bleeding profusely. He begged you to bring him to the nearest hospital.
The nearest hospital is located at the town proper. To bring your friend to the
hospital would mean missing the business opportunity laid on your shoulders by the
company and eventually killing the hopes of 300 employees and their respective
families to survive the impending bankruptcy of their ultimate source of income. On the
contrary, leaving behind your friend is a sure death awaiting considering the damage he
incurred from the accident.
1. What will you do and why?
2. What ethical theory you can use to justify your answer?
3. If you were unable to attend the negotiations, do you think the company is
justified for terminating your employment for failing to do your job and why?