My January Friends

So, recently we opened my Pharmacy Law and Ethics class discussing the different theories of ethics, and I'm rather blown away by some of the opinions people have in how we should act. I've personally prescribed to the logic of utilitarianism since I learned of its existence in high school, though it's necessary to modify it because it's far too difficult to be a true follower of the concept.

Utilitarianism is a system of ethics wherein all actions a person makes should be for the greatest outcome of good and least bad for the world. Only outcomes matter and not intentions, which is perhaps one of the bigger problems with the system. We can't always know all of the repercussions that our actions will have. Henry Ford probably had little idea of the effects of all the pollution coming out of the tailpipe of his Model T. Utilitarianism also requires making a great deal of sacrifices that may be difficult to make.

I mention utilitarianism not just because it's my favorite, but also because it's the system that health care professionals tend to be encouraged to use. Why? Well, usually someone can't justify their emotions after the fact, so emotivism is out for sure. The same goes for the subjectivity of ethics of conscience, that little voice in your head that tells you what you should and shouldn't do. Justification for action is important in any profession, but particularly those that are most liable to be sued for damaging human lives.

Still, there are some pretty difficult ethics questions to work though. At what point does confidentiality become dangerous? At what point is a human considered a human in the birth process? At what point are we considered dead? As far as death is concerned, at what point should someone pull the plug? Unfortunately, loved ones are usually the ones that have the power to do so, and loved ones are also unlikely to do what you want. For instance, do you want to live on in a vegetative state on life support? Perhaps some people do, but for those that don't, it would take a very strong person with medical power of attorney to actually order it.

The sacredness of life is very difficult to measure, and thus it makes it a topic for endless debate. It seems unrealistic to be able to define a definite point at which a person begins to count at a person. Conception? A certain stage of development? Birth? If I'm not mistaken, we currently define death at the point at which there is no measurable brain activity. It used to be stopped breathing or a stopped heart, but artificial respirators and circulation created the need for a new definition.

The reality of the matter is that life is just a complex series of chemical calculations. Determining what is human from that is completely arbitrary and based on personal beliefs, just as we have a completely arbitrary way of classifying organisms through taxonomy. Consensus on the matter is incredibly unlikely, and perhaps that's a good thing. Disagreement breeds dialogue and leads to new discoveries and thoughts, assuming the disagreement doesn't become petty, though perhaps that's a big assumption.

I'm not really sure at what point I consider a conglomeration of matter to be human, and I hope I don't have to make a delineated decision any time soon. Much less do I desire to be the one with medical power of attorney saying pull the plug. Do I have the strength of character and resolution to follow through with someone's wishes to be allowed to pass away? I'd like to think I'm completely logical and would be able to do so, but the emotion tied to human existence can crack even the greatest of resolutions.