ASHWIN DAMANI

CHLH 260

MEDIA PROJECT

11/12/2022

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

DILEMMA

A Fault in Our Stars, a novel by John Green that was adapted into a popular movie, tells the

story of two teenagers who fall in love while dealing with cancer. The movie portrays a

common medical dilemma faced by cancer patients and their families: whether to undergo a

risky clinical trial for a new treatment. The medical dilemma portrayed in the movie A Fault in

Our Stars is the difficult decision that the main characters, Hazel and Augustus, face regarding

their cancer treatment. Both Hazel and Augustus have terminal cancer and must decide

whether to continue with aggressive treatments that may prolong their lives but may also cause

significant suffering, or to stop treatment and focus on enjoying their remaining time. In this

paper, I will evaluate the best course of action in this situation, considering the relevant

stakeholders, the potential benefits and risks of the clinical trial, and key ethical principles and

concepts.
STAKEHOLDERS

The relevant stakeholders in this dilemma include the patients themselves, their families and

loved ones, and their medical team. The patients must weigh the potential benefits and

drawbacks of continuing treatment, considering their own personal preferences and values.

Their families and loved ones also have a stake in the decision, as they will be affected by the

patients' choices and will likely want to support them in whatever decision they make. The

medical team, on the other hand, has a responsibility to provide the best possible care for their

patients and may have their own opinions on the best course of action.

SIDES OF DILEMMA

The movie "A Fault in Our Stars" presents a complex ethical dilemma for the main characters,

Hazel and Augustus, who are both living with terminal cancer.

RIGHT SIDE #1

On one hand, they must decide how to approach their treatment and manage their disease.

Should they pursue aggressive treatments and surgeries, even if they may only prolong their

lives by a few months at the expense of significant pain and suffering? Or should they choose to

focus on making the most of their remaining time and prioritize quality of life over quantity?

However, these treatments can also cause significant side effects, such as pain, nausea, and loss

of quality of life.
RIGHT SIDE #2

On the other hand, the doctors and other medical professionals involved in their care must

consider the best course of action for their patients. They must weigh the potential benefits

and drawbacks of different treatment options, and balance the desires and wishes of the

patients and their families with their own medical expertise and ethical obligations. Stopping

treatment may allow the patients to avoid these side effects and focus on enjoying their

remaining time, but it also means accepting their terminal illness and the eventual end of their

lives.

BEST SIDE

I personally feel that Right Side 2 is the best side. I believe Hazel is correct. She should be

allowed to live her life how she wants to even though it poses a risk to her life, especially given

the little amount of time she has left. She is being brought up to eventually die of cancer if she

isn't permitted to accomplish anything. What use does the help and medication she is getting

from the physicians serve if she is unable to achieve anything and is subject to so many

limitations?

In evaluating the best course of action, it is important to consider the individual circumstances

and preferences of each patient. For some, the potential benefits of continuing treatment may

outweigh the drawbacks, while for others, the focus on quality of life may lead them to choose

to stop treatment. In either case, open and honest communication between the patients, their

families and loved ones, and their medical team is crucial in making an informed decision. It is

also necessary to carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks of the clinical trial. In the
movie, the clinical trial offers the possibility of a cure for the patient's cancer, but it also

involves significant risks and uncertainty. In real-world situations, clinical trials for cancer

treatments are often accompanied by similar risks and uncertainties, making the decision to

participate a difficult one.

THEORY #1

Deontological ethics focuses on the inherent moral value of actions, rather than their

consequences. In the context of the movie, a deontological approach would emphasize the

importance of respecting the patients' autonomy and allowing them to make their own

decisions about their treatment, regardless of the potential outcomes. This approach would

also emphasize the importance of acting in accordance with moral rules and duties, such as the

duty of healthcare professionals to provide the best possible care for their patients.

THEORY #2

Consequentialist, on the other hand, focuses on the consequences of actions, rather than their

inherent moral value. In the context of the movie, a consequentialist approach would focus on

the potential benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options, and on choosing the

option that is most likely to produce the best overall outcome for the patients. This approach

would also consider the impact of different treatment options on the patients' quality of life

and overall well-being.

THEORY #3

Virtue ethics focuses on the character and virtues of the moral agent, rather than on the

inherent moral value of actions or their consequences. In the context of the movie, a virtue

ethics approach would emphasize the importance of the doctors and other medical

professionals involved in the patients' care acting with compassion, empathy, and wisdom. This

approach would also consider the overall moral character of the patients, and the virtues that

they embody, such as courage and resilience in the face of difficult circumstances.

PRINCIPLE #1

The autonomy principle, which highlights the significance of respecting patients' rights to make

their own decisions regarding their health care, is one of the key theories, principles, and

concepts that can be applied to this conundrum. This means that Hazel and Augustus should

have the freedom to choose their own medical care, with the help and direction of their

families and physicians. We learn that Hazel makes decisions about her care and that she even

wants to go to Amsterdam to realize a goal, despite the doctors' and her parents' worries that

she might not be able to fly because of breathing problems.

PRINCIPLE #2

The concept of beneficence is also relevant. The idea of beneficence, which urges healthcare

providers to behave in their patients' best interests, is another important one. In this instance,

it might entail promoting therapies that, despite their potential discomfort or difficulty, have
the potential to prolong patients' lives. It also entails ensuring that the patients' decisions are

consistent with their own beliefs and interests, as well as their general quality of life and well-

being. They emphasize that they are always acting in what they believe to be the patient's best

interests and do everything they can to help Hazel during her treatment and recovery.

PRINCIPLE #3

The principle of non-maleficence, which is the ethical obligation to avoid causing harm, would

require medical professionals to carefully weigh the potential risks of the trial. This principle is

demonstrated in the movie through the discussions and decisions surrounding the use of pain

medication and other treatments that may alleviate Hazel and Augustus' symptoms, even if

they may also shorten their lives. The doctors and other medical professionals involved in their

care must carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of these treatments to avoid

causing harm to the patients.

PRINCIPLE #4

The principle of justice is an ethical principle that emphasizes the importance of fairness and

equality in the distribution of benefits and burdens. In the context of the movie "A Fault in Our

Stars," the principle of justice may be relevant in considering the allocation of limited

healthcare resources and the distribution of pain and suffering among terminal cancer patients.

Overall, the principle of justice is an important consideration in the ethical dilemma presented

in "A Fault in Our Stars," and may provide a useful framework for making decisions about the

allocation of resources and the distribution of treatment options among terminal cancer

patients.
CONCEPT #1

Relativism is the ethical concept that holds that moral truths are relative to the individual or

culture, and that there is no universal standard of right and wrong. In the context of the movie,

a relativist approach might suggest that the moral value of different treatment options for

Hazel and Augustus is determined by their own personal values and beliefs, and that there is no

objective right or wrong answer.

CONCEPT #2

Consequentialism, on the other hand, is the ethical concept that holds that the moral value of

an action is determined by its consequences. In the context of the movie, a consequentialist

approach would focus on the potential benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options

for Hazel and Augustus and would seek to choose the option that is most likely to produce the

best overall outcome.

CONCEPT #3

Non-consequentialism, also known as deontological ethics, is the ethical concept that holds

that the moral value of an action is determined by its inherent moral worth, rather than by its

consequences. In the context of the movie, a non-consequentialist approach would emphasize

the importance of respecting the patients' autonomy and allowing them to make their own

decisions about their treatment, regardless of the potential outcomes.

PERSONAL REFLECTION:

In reflecting on the portrayal of the medical dilemma in A Fault in Our Stars, the movie raises

important ethical questions about medical decision-making and the potential risks and benefits

of clinical trials. While it is ultimately up to the individual patient to make the decision, medical

professionals have a responsibility to provide support and guidance throughout the process. In

conclusion, the best course of action in the portrayed medical dilemma depends on a variety of

factors and requires careful consideration of ethical principles and concepts. By applying these

principles and concepts, medical professionals can support patients in making informed and

empowered decisions about their own care.

In my personal reflection, I found the portrayal of the medical dilemma in A Fault in Our Stars to

be both realistic and thought-provoking. As someone who has not personally experienced

cancer or made difficult medical decisions, the film provided a glimpse into the difficult choices

that cancer patients and their families must make. It also highlighted the importance of

considering not just the biological factors, but also the psychological and social factors, when

making these decisions. Overall, the film does a good job of bringing attention to the complex

medical dilemmas faced by cancer patients, and the need for a holistic approach to treatment

that considers the full range of factors affecting a patient's health and well-being.