Case Study Analysis The purpose of this paper is to illustrate and analyse two ethical frameworks in relation to a particular

case study, this essay will critically analyse the case study, which will provide an ethical understanding into an issue that has currently become newsworthy. The case study in question is about Mr Mathers who is aged in his 60s, he suffocated his chronically ill partner of 22 years, claiming the act was a result of selfless love. Mr Mathers stated that his wife wanted to die and on the evening before her death, his wife purposely overdosed on 31 antidepressant pills, however, when she was still alive the following morning, Mr Mathers suffocated his wife, stating that he finished what she had actually started. During the police investigation, Mr Mathers openly and honestly told the police that he had killed his wife, however, before stating this information; the police believed that his wifes death was an act of suicide. This particular case study outlines two primary issues that being the question of assisted suicide and telling the truth, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, within the context of this case study, two ethical frameworks can be applied to further explore and discuss this case study and the implications that may arise. Mappes and Degrazia (2006) state ethical theories provide a framework that can be used to establish what is morally right and wrong in relation to ethical human behaviour. Thus, an ethical theory must provide effective guidance towards a situation, which will allow an ethical insight into moral perplexities. Firstly, non consequentialism can be applied as this ethical framework will provide an insight into the honesty of Mr Mathers, Rowan and Zinaich (2003) states this framework will question Mr Mathers moral intentions and how this illustrates Kants ethical theory of ethics and duty (Clark, 2000). Secondly, absolutism versus relativism will present an

ethical debate into the value of human life and how this particular value is viewed in relation to Mr Mathers and the wider community. Non consequentialsim or deontological ethics establishes an ought of the moral rightness or wrongness of an act and according to deontological theories of morality what is right outweighs any consequence (Schwickert, 2005). Kamm (1992) further states that deontological theories of morality are primarily concerned with producing the greatest good regardless of the consequence, thus sacrificing personal interests is much more important than harming others, whilst also producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Non-consequentialism is based upon the notion that human beings should have the capacity and a strong tendency to act from a personal point of view that allows people to value the goodness in all situations regardless of the outcome. Thiroux and Krasemann (2009), state deontological theories of morality are based upon the foundation that does not involve the consequences of peoples actions, above all, non consequentialism is primarily about the action, thus, deontological theorists state that consequences should not matter. Most importantly, the consequences that derive from this framework should not judge whether the actions of a person are moral or immoral. Therefore, all actions are to be judged solely on whether they are right and people solely on whether they are good (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009 p 54). In addition, the acts committed or the person involved should be judged either moral or immoral, regardless of the consequences and/or the outcome (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). Relativism versus absolutism are two extreme ethical approaches, which provide an ethical understanding towards the subject of morality and reality. Although they are both valid ethical frameworks, they are extremely contrasting towards their views and values about

morality (Arnold, Benditt and Graham, 1998). According to OHara and Weber (2006) values are standards of conduct and principles that guide human behaviour, thought and practices. Values can also be divided into two different realms, that being absolutism and relativism. Thiroux and Krasemann (2009) state absolutism is an ethical universal principle that morally binds all people in all cultures and situations (Thiroux and Krasemann, p. 88, 2009). The values surrounding absolutism is based upon the notion that there are certain laws that all people in all cultures must abide by, such as do not kill. Thus, absolutism holds the precedent that there is a moral system, which guides all human behaviour and beliefs. Absolutism also claims that all moral rules and principles will ethically guide peoples behaviour and does not allow any room for exceptions. Furthermore, absolutism can also be tied to the Kantian theory, thus, all moral principles should result in fulfilling ones moral duty at all times and in all situations, thus doing so, is holding the absolute value (Wong, 2000; Clark, 2000). Equally important to absolutism is relativism, Thiroux and Krasemann (2009) state there are no definite values and values are only relative to situations, time and place, therefore, this framework states there are no defined values and values only hold particular meaning to a given situation. Butts and Rich (2008) also states that what may be wrong in one culture may not be the case in another culture, therefore, it is acceptable for ethics and morality to differ among individuals and societies. In addition, ethical principles are all relative to the specific place in which they are held, thus, the relativists believe that morality varies from culture to culture and person to person. Furthermore, it is ethically important to respect the myriad of moral views that people hold. For instance, if a person is severely ill and in a lot of pain and their wish is assisted suicide, would it be wrong to go against the absolute principle of valuing human life? Within this framework, the relativist should be allowed the right to die, however, Kamm (1992), states absolutism as an ethical principle

actually denies individuals to act from a personal point of view, thus this ultimately discourages people to value the goodness in all situations. In order to understand moral discourse in relation to cultural relativism, it is important to indentify the person and their culture, therefore, identifying the culture that Mr and Mrs Mathers belongs to becomes the focal point among relativism. However, Thiroux and Krasmann (2009) state the absolutists would consider the whole situation challenging because resolving the controversy of absolutism versus relativism would never cease. For instance, it would seem that if relativism exists, then absolutism couldnt exist. Furthermore, if moral relativism holds any truths to that particular individual, then in the case of absolutism there would not be any values binding human beings to any moral and ethical points of view. In fact, absolutism states that two conflicting ethical frameworks cannot both be right and that there is only one that holds the ultimate truth. Therefore, the question raised in relation to the case study can revolve around whether Mr Mathers should be condemned for doing anything wrong if there are no absolutes to measure his ethical and moral beliefs. Due to moral principles varying from culture to culture, they cannot be absolute; Alexandra and Miller (2009) state the Dutch Courts have established guidelines for physicians to follow in selecting patients for assisted suicide. Therefore, these guidelines are relative in nature and hold no absolute moral code of valuing human life. Of course these guidelines must be followed, however, they do open up a debate and absolutists state that certain moral principles must be valid and valued by all cultures at all times. Principles such as valuing human life are fixed principles and they must apply to all people. Therefore, according to the absolute model of morality, it is paramount to value human life and killing of another human is wrong, even if that person is severely ill and in chronic pain. In addition, the relativist model of morality would state

if a person is severely ill and in a lot of pain and their wish is assisted suicide would it be wrong to go against the absolute principle of valuing human life? According to Arnold and Benditt (1998) the absolutists would then argue that a crime is a crime regardless of the circumstances, however the ethical relativists would say it is ok to kill a person who is in chronic pain, especially if this is the patients last wish. In addition and according to relativist ethics, anything that a group or culture decides is morally right, is right for that culture. For example, relativism states that it is acceptable to end a persons life as long as this has been identified within that particular culture. However, the ethical absolutists would call this murder and as a result, the issue becomes problematic. Whereas, the argument should not be about doing what is right or wrong, but rather what the person wants. Nonetheless, the state should not impose on its citizens a preferred way of life, but should leave them as free as possible to chose their own values because not all people share the same value system on morality. Therefore, individuals should be free as possible to choose their own ethical values without feeling pressured by absolute ethical principles or social policies. Overall, these two frameworks present opposite sides of a moral spectrum and deciding which one is right will continually raise an ethical awareness into the values that actually binds human behaviour (Arnold and Benditt, 1998). Alexandra and Miller (2009) state deontological moral theories hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action rests, not on the consequence but rather on the action that it is. Thus lying in itself is wrong and telling the truth is right. Furthermore, this can be applied to Mr Mathers actions, firstly he felt that he had a moral obligation to tell the police the truth and secondly he had a moral obligation to fulfil his wifes wishes. This then resulted into a situation that has left Mr Mathers in a dilemma, which ultimately has lead him to choose between doing

right by his wife and doing right by the law. Thiroux and Krasemann (2009) state deontological theories state there are no general moral rules as there are only actions that can be applied to situations. For these reasons, each situation must be approached individually and within this realm, a decision must be made into deciding what is the right action to take. Thus, these decisions are intuitionistic (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009, p. 54), that is what a person decides in a particular situation is based upon what they believe to be the right thing, that is, following their intuition. Therefore, this model of morality is highly individualistic, thus, individuals must decide what they feel the right thing is to do. Furthermore, deontologists are not concerned with the consequences, they are concerned with doing what they feel is right at that particular time and Mr Mathers acted on his instinct, which was to carry out his wifes wishes and assist in her suicide. Likewise, Mr Mathers actions can be seen from a deontological theory, however, in spite of this theory, Alexander and Miller (2009) state Kant added to this moral theory and developed a particularly influential deontological modal of viewing morality. Kant stated that humans should only act on a specific maximum or acting guiding principle (Alexandra and Miller 2009 p.6), however, the maxim principle must be one that can constantly be followed by all humans. Thus, killing is a bad maxim, even if good consequences result from the action. Therefore, all humans must have an immediate sense of what is right and wrong and intuition cannot be a reliable source as this opens up an array of issues (Thiroux and krasemann, 2009). In addition, Clark (2000) states that Kants deontology insists on fulfilling ones moral duty according to universal rules for all times and in all situations. Therefore, according to Kants theory, Mr Mathers was fulfilling his moral duty to both his wife and the police. Alternatively, Mapps and Zembaty (1982) clearly states that Kant believes all humans should only act on rules that we are willing to have applied universally (p.69) in addition, Kant also stated that he

was personally opposed to assisted suicide, therefore, there appears to be limitations within his own theory because nobody and including Kant wants to die a painful death. As a result, how can a deontological rule of theory exclude those in need, thus, if excluding a rule, such as assisted suicide to some people, then allowing a painful death on others is ultimately going against the universal principles of do unto others as you would have them done unto you. Therefore, this rule of duty is not a very good maxim, as it would need to be incorporated into a universal law, thus, according to Kant if we are not willing to apply the rule to ourselves then we can not apply it to others (Mapps and Zembaty, 1982). Therefore, the issue being raised is based upon the notion of Mr Mathers actions, as this doctrine of duty appears implausible and consequently this theory can at times be unsatisfactory. However, Kant also states that humans must respect the autonomy of others and failing to do so will result in denying our capacity to reason (Clark, 2000). Furthermore, Mr Mathers should not be punished for alleviating his wifes pain, Thiroux and Krasemann (2009) state that Kant argued that individuals must always keep their promises and because consequences do not matter, either would the outcome. Overall, the situation is arduous as there is no clear answer into the rightness or wrongness of Mr Mathers actions. The primary question resulting from this case study is should Mr. Mathers be accountable for his actions, the deontologist states that rules and actions are the only basis for morality, whereas the absolutist states that human rights must prevail and the relativist believes that individual values must be recognised and nothing is universal. These frameworks have clearly illustrated their strengths and weaknesses, however, the implications for Mr Mathers should result in a fair trial, as he was only doing what was right according to the morality of his wife.

Reference list Alexandra, A & Miller S 2009 Ethics in practice: moral theory and the profession, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Arnold N S, Benditt T M & Graham G 1998, Philosophy then and now, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Masachusetts, USA Butts J B & Rich K L 2008, Nursing ethics across the curriculum and into practice, 2nd edn, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, United states of America Clark, C L 2000, Social work ethics: politics, principles and practice, Palgrave Macmillan, New York Kamm F M 1992, Non consequentialism, the personas an end-in-itself, and the significance of the status, Philosophy and public affairs, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 354-389 Mapps T A & Zembaty J S 1982, Social ethics: morality and social policy, 2nd edn, McGraw Hill Book Company, United States of America. Mapps T A & Degrazia D 2006, Biomedical ethics, 6th edn, McGraw Hill, New York Rowan, J & Zinaich S 2003, Ethics for the professions, Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Belmont CA

Schwickert, E M 2005, Gender, morality and ethics of responsibility: complementing teleological and deontological ethics, Social Philosophy Today, vol.20, no.2, pp.164-187 Thiroux J P & Krasemann KW 2009, Ethics theory and practice, 10th edn, Pearson International Edition, London Wong, D 2000 in Snger P 2000, A companion to ethics, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford United Kingdom