PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 1 Matrix of Ethical Theories

Student Name

Capella University

PHI FPX 3200 Ethics in Health Care

Prof. Name

Date

Ethical Theory Matrix:

Ethical theories provide healthcare professionals with structured ways to evaluate difficult decisions involving patient rights, well-being, autonomy, fairness, and professional responsibilities. Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Ross’s ethics, and Natural Law Ethics offer different approaches to ethical decision-making. Utilitarianism focuses on achieving the greatest overall benefit, Kantian ethics emphasizes universal moral principles and respect for persons, Ross’s ethics balances competing duties, and Natural Law Ethics focuses on moral principles connected to human well-being and the preservation of life. Understanding these differences can help healthcare professionals approach complex ethical situations more systematically.

What Is an Ethical Theory in Healthcare?

An ethical theory is a framework used to determine whether an action is morally appropriate. In healthcare, ethical theories can help professionals analyze situations involving patient autonomy, confidentiality, treatment decisions, resource allocation, informed consent, and end-of-life care.

Different theories may produce different conclusions when applied to the same situation. Therefore, healthcare professionals must consider the relevant ethical principles, the circumstances of the case, professional obligations, and the potential effects of a decision.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on achieving the greatest overall benefit, happiness, or well-being for the greatest number of people. In healthcare, a utilitarian approach may support decisions that maximize positive outcomes for a population, even when an individual may experience some inconvenience, discomfort, or disadvantage.

For example, a healthcare organization may prioritize vaccine distribution to vulnerable populations, including older adults and healthcare workers. Protecting these groups may help reduce disease transmission and lower morbidity and mortality across the broader population. This decision reflects the utilitarian emphasis on maximizing overall benefit.

PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 1 Matrix of Ethical Theories

Strengths of Utilitarianism

A major strength of utilitarianism is its focus on improving overall well-being. It encourages healthcare organizations and professionals to consider how decisions affect patients, communities, and society as a whole.

Utilitarian reasoning can also promote cooperation and social responsibility because decision-makers consider the broader consequences of their actions. In public health emergencies, this approach can be particularly relevant when resources are limited and difficult allocation decisions must be made (Vearrier & Henderson, 2021).

Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

A significant concern with utilitarianism is that maximizing overall benefit can potentially conflict with individual rights. A decision that benefits the majority may place a minority group or vulnerable individual at a disadvantage.

This creates an ethical challenge because healthcare decisions should not simply disregard the rights, dignity, or interests of individuals in pursuit of a larger collective benefit. Utilitarian reasoning can therefore become problematic when the interests of marginalized populations are consistently sacrificed for the perceived benefit of the majority (Dale, 2020).

Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics emphasizes rational moral principles, individual dignity, and respect for persons. A central concept is the categorical imperative, which requires individuals to act according to principles that could reasonably be applied universally.

In healthcare, Kantian ethics places considerable importance on respecting patient autonomy and treating each person as an individual with inherent moral worth. Decisions should not treat patients merely as a means to achieve another objective.

For example, a physician may refuse to disclose confidential patient information without appropriate authorization, even when disclosure might appear beneficial in a particular situation. Respecting confidentiality and patient autonomy reflects the Kantian emphasis on moral duties and respect for individuals.

Strengths of Kantian Ethics

One of the primary strengths of Kantian ethics is its strong protection of human dignity. It recognizes that every individual has inherent value and should be treated with respect regardless of personal circumstances or preferences.

This approach can be particularly useful in healthcare because respecting autonomy, informed consent, privacy, and dignity are fundamental components of ethical patient care. Kantian reasoning also provides consistent moral principles that can guide decision-making across different circumstances (Canning, 2019).

Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics can sometimes be viewed as rigid because it places substantial emphasis on following moral duties regardless of potential consequences. In complex healthcare situations, strict adherence to a moral rule may create difficult outcomes.

Another concern is that Kantian ethics may provide less flexibility when competing ethical considerations arise. Real-world healthcare decisions frequently involve circumstances in which following one moral duty may interfere with another important obligation.

Ross’s Ethics

Ross’s ethics, also known as the theory of prima facie duties, recognizes that individuals may have several moral obligations at the same time. These duties can conflict, and the ethically appropriate decision requires determining which duty should take priority in the circumstances.

Ross identified several important prima facie duties, including duties related to fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and self-improvement. Unlike an approach that treats every moral rule as absolute, Ross’s framework allows decision-makers to evaluate competing obligations in context.

For example, consider a nurse caring for a terminally ill patient experiencing severe pain. The patient requests a medication dosage higher than the recommended amount. The nurse must consider the patient’s autonomy and desire for relief while also considering the professional duty to avoid causing harm. Ross’s framework allows the nurse to examine these competing obligations before determining the appropriate course of action.

Strengths of Ross’s Ethics

A major strength of Ross’s approach is its flexibility. Rather than requiring one universal rule to determine every ethical decision, the framework recognizes that healthcare situations can involve multiple legitimate moral obligations.

This makes the theory particularly useful for complex clinical situations because healthcare professionals can consider the specific circumstances of each case. Ross’s approach also acknowledges that ethical decision-making may require balancing competing responsibilities rather than following a single principle automatically (Kolawole & David, 2022).

Weaknesses of Ross’s Ethics

The flexibility of Ross’s theory can also create challenges. Prima facie duties may conflict, and the theory does not always provide a precise method for determining which duty should take priority.

As a result, two healthcare professionals could potentially evaluate the same competing duties differently. This may create inconsistencies in ethical decision-making and make difficult cases challenging to resolve.

Natural Law Ethics

Natural Law Ethics is based on the idea that certain moral principles can be understood through human nature, reason, and fundamental purposes of human life. In healthcare, this framework may emphasize the preservation and promotion of human life, health, and well-being.

Healthcare professionals applying Natural Law Ethics may evaluate whether an action supports fundamental human goods and contributes to human flourishing. The theory has also been influential in discussions involving medical treatment, end-of-life care, reproductive ethics, and other areas of healthcare.

For example, a physician may decline to provide assisted suicide to a terminally ill patient while instead providing palliative care to manage pain and improve quality of life. From a Natural Law perspective, this decision may be based on the principle that human life should be preserved and that intentionally ending life conflicts with fundamental moral obligations.

Strengths of Natural Law Ethics

One strength of Natural Law Ethics is that it provides a framework based on universal moral principles rather than individual preferences alone. It can help healthcare professionals consider fundamental questions about human dignity, health, life, and well-being.

The theory can also provide a relatively clear framework for distinguishing between actions considered morally appropriate and those considered morally inappropriate. Its emphasis on human well-being can be relevant to healthcare decisions involving patient care and treatment (Varkey, 2021).

Weaknesses of Natural Law Ethics

A major criticism of Natural Law Ethics is that it may be too rigid when applied to complex healthcare situations. Ethical dilemmas often involve competing values, individual preferences, cultural differences, and circumstances that cannot easily be reduced to a single understanding of human purpose.

Critics may also question whether there is always one objectively identifiable natural purpose that should determine an ethical decision. Consequently, applying Natural Law Ethics in diverse healthcare settings can create disagreements about how universal principles should be interpreted (Haker, 2020).

How Do the Four Ethical Theories Differ?

The four approaches differ primarily in what they consider most important when making an ethical decision.

Ethical Theory	Primary Decision Focus	Healthcare Example	Major Strength	Major Weakness
Utilitarianism	Greatest overall benefit	Prioritizing vaccines to maximize public health benefits	Focuses on overall well-being	May overlook minority or individual rights
Kantian Ethics	Moral duties, autonomy, and human dignity	Protecting patient confidentiality	Strong protection of individual dignity	Can be rigid in complex situations
Ross’s Ethics	Balancing competing moral duties	Balancing pain relief with nonmaleficence	Flexible and context-sensitive	Provides limited guidance when duties conflict
Natural Law Ethics	Human nature, life, and fundamental goods	Providing palliative care instead of assisted suicide	Provides universal moral principles	May be inflexible or difficult to apply to diverse circumstances

Why Are Ethical Theories Important in Healthcare?

Healthcare professionals routinely encounter situations in which there is no simple answer. Ethical theories provide structured ways to identify the values and obligations involved in these situations.

For example, a resource-allocation decision might be examined through utilitarianism by considering overall outcomes. The same decision could be evaluated through Kantian ethics by asking whether individual rights and dignity are being respected. Ross’s ethics would encourage consideration of competing duties, while Natural Law Ethics might focus on fundamental human goods and the preservation of life.

Using ethical theories does not eliminate difficult decisions. Instead, these frameworks help healthcare professionals explain their reasoning, identify competing values, and make decisions in a more systematic manner.

Key Takeaway

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Ross’s ethics, and Natural Law Ethics provide distinct approaches to healthcare ethics. Utilitarianism emphasizes overall consequences, Kantian ethics emphasizes universal duties and respect for persons, Ross’s ethics focuses on balancing competing obligations, and Natural Law Ethics emphasizes fundamental principles related to human life and well-being. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each theory can help healthcare professionals analyze ethical dilemmas more carefully and recognize why different approaches may produce different conclusions.

References

Canning, U. P. (2019). Public health ethics: A flawed view of Kant’s argument from autonomy. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz164

Dale, S. (2020). Utilitarianism in crisis. Voices in Bioethics, 6. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/bioethics/article/view/6082

Haker, H. (2020). Towards a critical political ethics: Catholic ethics and social challenges. Schwabe Verlag. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TxmvEAAAQBAJ

Kolawole, A. S., & David, E. O. (2022). Patient-physician relationship: In defence of W. D. Ross’s prima facie duties. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, 13(3), 35–43. http://bjbio.bioethics.org.bd/index.php/BJBio/article/view/48

PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 1 Matrix of Ethical Theories

Kudlek, K., & Smith, P. T. (2022). The Kantian promise and peril of moral bioenhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 39(3), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12575

Paris, J. J., & Cummings, B. M. (2019). Elisabeth Kübler-Ross: A pioneer thinker, influential teacher and contributor to clinical ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(12), 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1674549

Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119

Vearrier, L., & Henderson, C. M. (2021). Utilitarian principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. HEC Forum, 33(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09431-7