In this Module, you have learned about Virtue Ethics and spent time thinking about an article written on your applied ethics topic from the perspective of a virtue ethicist. In your initial post, you must do the following:
- Clearly explain the author’s position on your topic (animal rights, euthanasia, or global poverty). This should be formatted like a thesis statement (e.g., Slote believes that it is wrong to ….).
- Clearly explain the author’s reasons in support of this position. Make sure to do so well enough that your classmates who are working on another topic understand the author’s argument as well as how it counts as an argument from a virtue ethical perspective.
- Then, state whether you agree with the author’s conclusion and explain why or why not.
*Remember, the article you need to read for this discussion forum can be found in 5.2: Applying Virtue Ethics and is based on the topic that you’ve chosen. You should be writing on one of the following articles:
- Animal Rights: “The Good Life for Non-Human Animals: What Virtue Requires of Us” by Rebecca Walker
- Euthanasia: “Trust, Suffering, and the Aesculapian Virtues” by Annette C. Baier
- Global Poverty: “Famine, Affluence, and Virtue” by Michael Slote
Respond to one of the following three “news clippings” related to virtue ethics from your Pozgar text. Write a 1- 2 page essay addressing the discussion questions posed for the one you selected. Be sure to clearly identify the news clipping you selected.
Adhere to APA formatting and cite all sources. Review the rubric for further information on how your assignment will be graded.
Watch the following 3 videos and choose one to address for your assignment.
#1. Wrong-Operation Doctor ( LINK: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/… )
Assignment Discussion Questions
1. Discuss the issues of integrity in this case.
2. Should criminal charges be considered in this case, if accurately reported? Discuss your answer.
3. Why did you choose to respond to this story?
4. How is integrity displayed in your clinical setting?
Judgment Upheld in Arkansas Brain Surgery Lawsuit
The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld an $11 million judgment in a medical malpractice lawsuit against an insurer for Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH), in a suit brought by a Mabelvale couple after a doctor operated on the wrong side of their son’s brain.
The Dec. 13 ruling rejected appeals by by Proassurance Indemnity Co. and of the parents of Cody Metheny.
A word from our sponsor:
Rub elbows with the leaders of Florida’s property & casualty insurance industry at FAIR’s Annual Insurance Industry Awards Gala on September 28, 2017, in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Keynote Speaker: Joe Petrelli, President of Demotech, Inc. Learn More.
The Metheny’s wanted the court to restore the original $20 million judgment after it was reduced by a judge to $11 million. The insurance company argued for a new trial so a jury could consider whether doctors involved in the surgery should share blame.
The court rejected both arguments.
Cody Metheny was 15 when he underwent surgery in an effort to end seizures that originated in the right side of his brain. The surgeon, Dr. Badih Adada, who performed surgeries at ACH but was employed by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), operated on the wrong side of the brain at first, the left side, and destroyed brain tissue in the process, according to documents released by the Court. After realizing his mistake, Dr. Adada proceeded to operate on the correct side of the brain.
After the surgery, Dr. Adada admitted to Metheny’s parents he had initially started the operation on the left side of the brain but said he had not harmed it, and had successfully removed the right-side lesion, according to Court documents.
Metheny now lives in a rehabilitation center.
Some 15 months after the surgery, the Methenys found out that tissue had wrongly been removed from the left side of the boy’s brain.
In their original suit against the hospital and the surgeon, the Methenys “sought both compensatory and punitive damages based on two counts of medical negligence, as well as one count of outrage,” the Court noted.
The circuit court dismissed the outrage claim. Dr. Adada and other physicians named in the lawsuit settled with the Methenys but the case proceeded against ACH.
At trial the jury found in favor of the Methenys and awarded the $20 million in damages, which the circuit court reduced to $11 million, “an amount consistent with ProAssurance’s liability coverage for ACH,” according to the Court’s opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin.
ProAssurance in its appeal asserted that the circuit court failed to “instruct the jury in a manner that would allow it to apportion liability among it and certain physicians who were sued in a prior case but ultimately settled;” refused to “allow ProAssurance to present evidence of fault attributable to the settling physicians; and “denied denying ProAssurance’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) where the evidence supporting Cody’s future damages was based on improperly bundled calculations.”
Rejecting ProAssurance’s appeal, the Court noted that it found no errors in the actions of the circuit court.