John’s problem begins
with the refusal of the insurance company to fund his son’s
transplant? What are your thoughts on this as an ethical issue?
This
issue is so hard to judge because of corse everyone should be entitled to the
health care they require if they have private health care. But in this case
there are so many people that need to get on the transplant list that are in
the same situation.
John’s response is to
take people hostage. Would John’s response be
consistent with Hooker’s three legged
stool model or Fletchers’ situation
ethics framework? Explain.
What does the paramedic think of doctors? Why?
He thinks
they just want money, because they don’t do their job for all that
need it, they only take care of people that pay.
Why does nobody have any sympathy for the man who sprays
pepper spray in John's face?
Because
it was obvious that he abuses his girlfriend.
Why does the woman with the baby describe John as "a
very good man"?
Because
he still took care of all the hostages.
John's wife says, "I support him in everything he
does." Should she? Could she
justify her response on the basis of Hooker’s model or
Situation Ethics? Explain.
How ethical is the media’s response?
The
medias response is so unethical as they broadcast personal moments but this is
what gets the child on the transplant list, so it worked in their favor
Why is the crowd on John's side?
Because
they believe in the cause, it’s something to support
John offers his own heart. Is he crazy? Or should he just
"let go" and "accept" it?
He isn’t crazy, he’s desperate. He is willing to take his own
life so his son can live as he wouldn’t be able to live with himself if he
could’ve saved him.
Would it cross a line for the doctor to take John's heart
and transplant it?
It’s hard to say, if it’s what John wants and the
doctor is willing it shouldn’t be crossing the line, it’s just the fact that its ‘take a life to save a life?’
