Consequentialism In Clinical Trials Essay
In randomized clinical trials, it is difficult to decide whether there is an ethical reason for offering an option that could potentially cause more harm than benefits. Doctors must decide whether to recommend an experimental option to a patient. There is a question of ethics that arises whether one could make the decision without sufficient evidence on each choice. Consequentialism is an ethical approach that reasons an action’s morality is contingent upon the outcome of the action. Decisions involving randomized clinical trials can be difficult, but by thinking ethically, and in this case, using consequentialism, a doctor can recommend the best situation with the given information.
Mr. Jerome Jenkins was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2 years …show more content…
Satherwaite and her patient, Mr. Jenkins, Dr. Satherwaite’s decision should be based on the overall greatest outcome of the two trials. Utilitarian (popular type of consequentialism) Jeremy Bentham developed a felicific (which he called “happiness-making”) calculus to calculate an action’s overall tendency. This takes into account the extent, duration, likelihood, and intensity of pains and pleasures (Pearce, 2017). In the case of randomized clinical trials, using Bentham’s method, one would subtract the harms from the benefits. This would convey that although the experimental treatment has much greater harms possible, using Bentham’s equation for the outcome of greatest happiness, the experimental trial would produce the greatest result in the favor of the …show more content…
Some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, believe morality is determined by the act itself, not the consequences that follow, known as deontological moral theory (Mastin, 2008). In the case of randomized clinical trials, Dr. Satherwaite would need to recommend the trial that would be morally ‘right’ for anyone that might be in the same situation as Mr. Jenkins. The experimental trial has many more drawbacks than the standard treatment. While the standard treatment only has a fifth of the amount of benefits the experimental trial offers, there are a tenth of the harms that could be brought to the patient. This could make the standard trial seem more
Mr. Jerome Jenkins was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2 years …show more content…
Satherwaite and her patient, Mr. Jenkins, Dr. Satherwaite’s decision should be based on the overall greatest outcome of the two trials. Utilitarian (popular type of consequentialism) Jeremy Bentham developed a felicific (which he called “happiness-making”) calculus to calculate an action’s overall tendency. This takes into account the extent, duration, likelihood, and intensity of pains and pleasures (Pearce, 2017). In the case of randomized clinical trials, using Bentham’s method, one would subtract the harms from the benefits. This would convey that although the experimental treatment has much greater harms possible, using Bentham’s equation for the outcome of greatest happiness, the experimental trial would produce the greatest result in the favor of the …show more content…
Some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, believe morality is determined by the act itself, not the consequences that follow, known as deontological moral theory (Mastin, 2008). In the case of randomized clinical trials, Dr. Satherwaite would need to recommend the trial that would be morally ‘right’ for anyone that might be in the same situation as Mr. Jenkins. The experimental trial has many more drawbacks than the standard treatment. While the standard treatment only has a fifth of the amount of benefits the experimental trial offers, there are a tenth of the harms that could be brought to the patient. This could make the standard trial seem more