Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Begley, A. M. (2008). Guilty but good: Defending voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue perspective. Nursing Ethics, 15(4), 434-445.

This article is presented as a defence of voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue perspective and it is written with the objective of generating debate and challenging the assumption that killing is necessarily vicious in all circumstances. Practitioners are often torn between acting from virtue and acting from duty. In the case presented the physician was governed by compassion and this illustrates how good people may have the courage to sacrifice their own security in the interests of virtue. The doctor’s action created huge tensions for the nurse, who was governed by the code of conduct and relevant laws. Appraising active euthanasia from a virtue perspective can offer a more compassionate approach to the predicament of practitioners and clients. The tensions arising from the virtue versus rules debate generates irreconcilable difficulties for nurses. A shift towards virtue would help to resolve this problem and support the call for a change in the law. The controversial nature of this position is acknowledged. The argument is put forward on the understanding that many practitioners will not agree with the conclusions reached.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. How does the author challenge the assumption that killing is necessarily vicious in all circumstances?
2. What conclusions does the author reach in regards moving more towards virtue ethics in regards to euthanasia?

***

Williams, P. T. (1996). To kill or not to kill: A question of wartime ethics. Nursing Ethics, 3(2), 150-156.

In this article, the author describes ethical decision-making in unique circumstances. A dichotomy exists between the dual roles of nurse and disaster manager in a wartime setting. The circumstances of the situation had never been faced before and no precedents existed for the type of decisions being made. Clearly, professional codes of conduct existed along with international conventions with reference to war. The circumstances required the author to challenge the concepts of teleology and deontology in a search for the most fitting answers to a unique problem. His aim was to try to create the greatest good out of an impossible situation. The author reflects on his actions in the light of ethical thinking and considers whether his decisions were right.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What were the ethical issues the author had to face that he discussed in this article?
2. Explain how utilitarian and deontological principles are applied to these ethical questions?
3. How would the author address this ethical situation if faced with it again?

***

Satkunanandan, S. (2011). The extraordinary categorical imperative. Political Theory, 39(2), 234-260.

Many political theorists assume that Kant’s categorical imperative can only present itself to politics epistemologically —that is, as a test or procedure for acquiring more certain knowledge of duties. This study retrieves the ontological aspect of the categorical imperative by showing that the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals is a conversion narrative. In the Groundwork Kant describes a transformative encounter with the categorical imperative as a principle that discloses our (ordinarily concealed) ontological condition. This encounter opens a new mode of being characterized by the feeling of awe. In its ontological aspect, the categorical imperative discloses human freedom and demands an unflagging thoughtfulness, but offers no material guidance about duties. When understood in both its ontological and epistemological aspects, the categorical imperative offers a rich portrait of human responsibility and can help illuminate the ethical stance appropriate to politics without becoming a standard to be imposed upon politics.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. How does freedom and obligation conflict when dealing with ethical decision making?
2. How does ‘awe’ impact the categorical imperative discussed by Kant?  How can awe impact ethical issues in modern everyday life?