Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma Utilitarianism to the dilemma Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

 

Week7AssignmentEthics.docx
Home>Nursing homework help>Mandatory Vaccination
Week 7 Assignment: Course Project Milestone – Final Paper

Required Resources

· Read/ Textbook: Chapter 12

· Lesson

· Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the sources from the annotated bibliography. Additional sources may be included as appropriate.)

Instructions Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

· Summarize the dilemma.

· Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.

· Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

· Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma

· Utilitarianism to the dilemma

· Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.)

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

· References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

picViolet.docx
Home>Nursing homework help>Mandatory Vaccination
ETHICS ASSIGNMENT MILESTONE TOPIC SELECTION 2

Mandatory Vaccination

Violeta Morales

Chamberlain University

March 20, 2022

Topic: Mandatory Vaccination

Mandatory vaccination is an ancient practice that has remained a controversial issue due to variance in beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. Since vaccines were introduced in 1796, there have been people in support of the practice while there have also been other against vaccines. The case has only gotten worse with the government making some vaccines mandatory as the determined compelled those against vaccines to feel like their feelings and rights have been violated by the government. at the same time, the government leaving people exposed and vulnerable to contagious diseases has led to massive negative effects a situation that has compelled the government to go against the wish and desires of some people. There are a lot of reasons shared by both parties and the challenging thing is that all arguments are valid hence creating an intense ethical or moral dilemma on the issue.

The supporters of mandatory vaccinations claims that vaccines save lives since infectious diseases are leading killers for instance polio, tetanus, chickenpox, measles, and the recent corona virus among others (Orient, 2019). Secondly, the supporters claims that vaccines boosts the body’s immune system and this makes the body able to handle even other underlying conditions that could have affected overall wellbeing of the person.

On the other hand, the opposers of mandatory vaccinations claim that vaccines have string side effects and there are many instances they have weakened the body’s natural immune system. This is because the body is created in a manner it has a natural method of fighting diseases and hence vaccines only compromises the original body version (Giubilini, 2021). The second reason shared by those opposing vaccines is that vaccines are made from chemicals and it is for this reason that some people have still suffered other complications to the point of suffering death despite having been vaccinated.

According to MacDonald, et al., (2018); Ethical Egoist is a person that makes a moral decision guided by pure self-interest. On the case of Ethical Egoist, such a person is likely to support the perspective that he/she would feel would suit personal interests on the matter. In the case the ethical egoist would have a direct link and benefit from the act of having people vaccinated, he/she would support the idea not because it is good but because he/she is benefiting. On the other hand, it he/she is not benefiting in any way, he/she is likely to go against the mandatory vaccinations claiming they violate human rights. The reason for this is that ethical egoist are always in support of things they would benefit and can highly all benefits while shadowing negative effects and always talks ill of things they feel are not of any importance to them even though they have a general benefit to others (MacDonald, et al., 2018). Whenever there is no benefit, ethical egoists are more focused on negativity of the issues than the positivity of an issue.

Looking at the mandatory vaccinations moral controversy issue; it is evident there is a conflict between loyalty to self and to community. A majority of the people are more focused on loyalty to self by looking at the gains they would have as individuals as compared to community benefits. As a long as people feel they do not have any direct benefit as individuals, they tend to argue against vaccines overlooking the general benefit the society is having (Orient, 2019). At the same time, many people make use of the knowledge they have, personal beliefs, and attitudes towards an issue to make a decision that would affect a community. Nevertheless, the fact that vaccines affects the society, loyalty to self should be overlooked and people applying good interest for others to make a general decision. This being the case, vaccines should be viewed from the perspective of how they have benefited the society and not a few people as this is the morally acceptable perspective.

Social contract ethicists are people that claim people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that established political and moral rules of behaviors. On the case of mandatory vaccines, the social contract ethicists would support vaccinations since they have proven to have more benefits than challenges a situation that communicates morally and interest of the majority (Giubilini, 2021). The more reason is that social contract ethicists are more focused on morals than self-interests and this means it is the well-being of the society that takes center stage. From this perspective, it is evident there is a collision between personal obligations and national ones. This is because social contract ethicists are nationalists that focus on taking care of national obligations overshadowing their personal obligations despite the desire to have their attitudes and feelings on the issue taken into consideration. This is the action that best suits the situation where personal interests should be left aside while national interests uplifted for the wellbeing of the majority (Orient, 2019). The more reason is that when the interest of the majority is considered, mandatory vaccines would be supported or opposed from morally acceptable arguments and not because a single or few people like or do not like them.

References

Giubilini, A. (2021). Vaccination ethics. British medical bulletin, 137(1), 4-12.

MacDonald, N. E., Harmon, S., Dube, E., Steenbeek, A., Crowcroft, N., Opel, D. J., … & Butler, R. (2018). Mandatory infant & childhood immunization: Rationales, issues and knowledge gaps. Vaccine, 36(39), 5811-5818.

Orient, J. M. (2019). Vaccine Controversies: the Case for Freedom and Informed Consent. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 24(3).