The aim of this assignment is to explain the ethical issues that are raised by the case described below ("The Case of Stephen Dawson

Subject:PhilosophyPrice:9.82 Bought3

Share With

The aim of this assignment is to explain the ethical issues that are raised by the case described below ("The Case of Stephen Dawson.")

1. Describe the basic facts of the case. 
2. Describe the ethical issues, problems, and questions that arise from these facts, as well as how they arise from these facts. 
3. Identify the ethical positions, stances, and commitments taken by the various players in this case. (For instance, does someone express a commitment to utilitarianism? To deontology? Etc.) 
4. Identify some possible solutions to the issues raised by this case that may be offered by proponents of the ethical theories we've considered (primarily utilitarianism, deontology, and principilism.) 
 

this assignment from a descriptive perspective. That is to say, do not take a side one way or the other on the various issues; just describe the issues that arise and some possible solutions to them offered by various ethical perspectives.

 

 

The Case of Stephen Dawson 

 

Stephen Dawson was born in March of 1976. He was born slightly prematurely and suffered from a minor respiratory problem. While in hospital, he contracted meningitis. This resulted in him suffering severe brain damage. Stephen was left with no control over his faculties, limbs or bodily functions (and no realistic prospect of developing such control). Also as a result of the brain damage, Stephen needed to have a shunt installed in order to drain excess cerebrospinal fluid from his brain to another body cavity where it could be absorbed or excreted. The presence of a functioning shunt was crucial to his continued survival. Without it, excess fluid would have built up in his brain resulting in pain and, eventually, almost certain death. Stephen was initially cared for at home. This required his parents to provide a total of about 10 hours per day of very attentive care (e.g., feeding him, administering medicine, providing physiotherapy, dealing with seizures and so on). His parents reported that caring for him was exhausting but that they initially hoped he might exceed his doctors' expectations. Until he was approximately two years old, his parents claimed that he could hold his own head up, respond to stimulation, play with other children and that he sometimes seemed to watch television (although they were told by Stephen's doctors that the meningitis had left him blind). All this changed in early 1978, when he caught a flu that led to him spending the spring and summer of that year in and out of hospital. Following this, Stephen's parents noted that his condition became much worse. In their view, he was in constant pain. His seizure activity increased and he seemed to become unaware of his surroundings. In response, his parents sought extra help in caring for Stephen through several government channels. They were unsuccessful and so, in the summer of 1978, they placed Stephen in an institution that provided long-term care and rehabilitation for physically disabled children. However, in early 1979, the institution placed Stephen in foster care on the ground that his condition was so poor that the institution's care and facilities could be better used by someone else. Stephen remained in foster care until 1982, at which point his foster mother was unable to continue caring for him and he was returned to the institution. In early 1983, it was discovered that Stephen needed a second shunt operation in order to repair a blockage in the shunt. The operation itself was quite simple and there was no question that it was unlikely Stephen would survive without it. However, although they initially gave their approval for this operation, Stephen's parents soon withdrew their permission. In their view, it was better for Stephen not to have the operation and so to be allowed to die. Because of Stephen's parents' refusal to give their consent to the surgery, the Superintendent of Family and Child Services for British Columbia sought to have custody of Stephen given to him (i.e., effectively to the province). A judge for the Provincial Court of British Columbia initially ruled against the province. However, the province appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of British Columbia with the result that custody was awarded to the Superintendent of Family and Child Services and the surgery was performed.