Question #2: Active & Passive Euthanasia (Readings: Rachels, Active and Passive Euthanasia) 8.5 Points
Using the same case as Question #1 answer the following questions:
According to Rachels, what is Mr. Carter actually requesting and what does the “conventional doctrine” say about such requests? (Be sure to explain what the “conventional doctirne” is according to Rachels.)
According to Rachels, if Mr. Carter asked for active euthanasia, would it be morally acceptable to accept Mr. Carter’s request? (Be sure to explain Rachels’s arguments regarding active euthanasias in your answer.)
In your own opinion, do you think it would be morally acceptable for Dr. Smith to accept Mr. Carter’s request for active euthanasia? Why or why not?
Question #3: Research on Human Subjects (Readings: The Nuremberg Code and The Declaration of Helsinki) 8 points
Dr. Smith works at a group home for children and adults with severe mental and physical disabilities. Over the past few months they have been struggling with an outbreak of COVID-19 in their adult population. Dr. Smith is not a trained researcher but starts developing a vaccine for the virus because she wants to help her patients. In order to expedite the study, she starts testing the vaccine directly on residents, both young and old, without any previous tests on animals. She also fails to discuss the study with the residents parents or guardians, as she does not want to slow down the process. In the end, Dr. Smith succeeds at developing a vaccine for COVID-19.
Which aspects of Dr. Smiths vaccine experiment violate The Nuremberg Code?
Which aspects of Dr. Smiths vaccine experiment do not violate The Nuremberg Code?
According to The Declaration of Helsinki, is testing the vaccine on this population morally acceptable? Why or why not?
In your own opinion, is Dr. Smiths vaccine experiment morally acceptable? Why or why not?