Case study on ONE of the following cases

CASE STUDY

For your case study, I would like you to write a 3-5 page paper concerning the case and your decision. This paper is worth 15% of your grade. Choose ONE out of the three cases presented below and do the following:

Present the relevant facts. Relevant facts are facts that should be considered when making a decision about what action to take in the case. (Some of these facts will be stated directly in the case. Some must be inferred.)
Clearly list the alternatives. (What available action could be taken?)
Make your decision. (Which of the available actions will you argue should be taken?)
Defend your decision over the other alternatives. In this regard, employ BOTH a Kantian and a Utilitarian approach to the case (that is, what would Kant’s view of the categorical imperative and the Categorical Imperative Procedure determine; what would the Principle of Utility and the view of hedonism determine?). For example, you may defend your decision from a Kantian perspective and offer a Utilitarian criticism or vice versa. If you think neither theory can adequately explain the basis of your decision, explain why this is the case. Provide clear arguments and reasons for your position.
Include one criticism of your position. You may have given several reasons for your decision. It is only necessary to offer a possible criticism of at least one. (Ideally, this should be what you perceive to be the strongest criticism of your position.).

Here are some general paper guidelines to consider for your case study:

Good, clear opening paragraph
Summarize what the case is and the moral dilemma
Include a thesis statement that includes which decision should have been pursued and a justification for it
Accurate, concise description of the pertinent features of the case

Other guidelines to consider:

Paper is written well: clear structure, no typos or spelling mistakes, proper grammar
Sources (if any) are properly cited
Length of paper does not exceed the suggested amount
Paper adheres to format requirements (double-spaced, margins, Times New Roman font, etc.)

WWW. CASHFORBIRTHCONTROL.COM

The State child welfare systems across the United States are overflowing with abused and neglected children. A large proportion of the children taken into the system are born to drug-addicted mothers. Such, so-called ‘substance exposed’ infants often suffer cognitive deficits, psychological and behavioral disorders, and chronic health problems. Such problems are substantial barriers to the well-being of these children and often significantly limit their opportunities. For instance, because of these problems it is notoriously difficult to find adoptive homes for substance-exposed infants. Families realize that adopting such a child will likely bring ongoing disruption to their homes, increased health care expenses and an overall uphill battle. What is worse, because non-infants are more difficult to place than infants, such children become harder and harder to place as they grow older.

In reality, most of these children grow up in the child welfare systems, victims of ‘foster care drift,” i.e. being transferred from foster home to foster home. This reality costs society millions of dollars, but worse, it brings harm to children. The traditional ways of addressing this problem have focused on treating drug addiction as well as encouraging families to consider adopting state wards. A more radical alternative has been proposed by an organization known as Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity, “C.R.A.C.K.” With chapters and representatives across the United States, the basic premise is captured by C.R.A.C.K.’s web page address, www.cashforbirthcontrol.com
(Links to an external site.)

Crack offers $200 for any drug addicted woman who is willing to undergo long-term or permanent birth control. The organization’s primary goal is to prevent drug addicts from giving birth to children that may have the deficits and disadvantages mentioned above, and, in so doing, reduce the size and cost of public child welfare systems. While some argue that C.R.A.C.K. is unethical because it exploits the vulnerability and desperation of marginally competent or incompetent women, among C.R.A.C.K.’s supporters is radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. “Some organizations just need me to mention them; others just need my money. I felt this was an organization that not only needed by money but my name too”, said Schlessinger.

Is the approach of C.R.A.C.K. ethical or not? Why or why not? (What are the benefits of such an approach and the disadvantages?)

Live Sperm, Dead Bodies

Bill K., a twenty-two-year-old man engaged to be married in four months, has just been diagnosed as brain-dead after a car accident. His father arrives and agrees to multiple organ donations to be coordinated by a local organ procurement agency. Bill’s father also makes an unusual request: can sperm be obtained and frozen for later use? Bill’s fiancée is unavailable for consultation, but the father believes that she may be interested in conceiving Bill’s child, so that “a part of him can live on.” Sperm have been successfully harvested in similar circumstances in a few cases. Bill was his father’s only son, and the father states that even if the fiancée is not interested in using the sperm, he would welcome the donation so that the family line could be continued in at least that fashion. Assuming that adequate technical means are available, should the sperm be retrieved?

Two Cardiac Arrests, One Medical Team

George Burnham and Donald Mattison were patients in adjoining rooms in the rehabilitation division of a state medical center. George was a thirty-three-year-old, severely retarded man who had lived in state institutions since the age of three. His family had had no contact with him for over twenty years. George had been trained to feed himself and to keep himself reasonably clean, but at the age of twenty-five he had suffered a cardiac arrest that left him with some paralysis. After rehabilitation he occasionally lacked bowel control. A second recent cardiac arrest left him semi-paralyzed and totally incontinent. The chances of him regaining even his former level of continence, the staff felt, were hopeless.

Donald Mattison, a forty-eight-year-old businessman, active in community and church affairs, married, and the father of four, had suffered a minor stroke, which left him slightly paralyzed. In his six weeks on the rehabilitation ward he had regained almost total use of his arm and leg. His prognosis of recovery seemed excellent.

The hospital has at least one cardiac arrest team on duty twenty-four hours a day, and one crash cart in every patient area at all times. The possibility of simultaneous cardiac arrests seemed remote. If it were to happen, there would not be time to transfer an additional crash cart from another patient area, since the rehabilitation ward is served by an extremely slow elevator.

But in this case the improbable happened. George had a cardiac arrest at 3:00 one morning. Within four minutes the cardiac team had arrived in his room and was ready to begin work. At that very moment Donald also had a cardiac arrest. Knowing of the simultaneous cardiac arrests, every team member hesitated. Two also knew both patients’ histories; the others, including the team leader, did not. After a moment, the team leader said, “First come, first served. Let’s go to work.” With no further hesitation, the team began to resuscitate George.

Without the emergency aid, Donald died. George was resuscitated, but suffered yet another cardiac arrest at 8:20 the next morning. This time another team was unable to revive him, and he too died. Did the team leader make the right decision in resuscitating George instead of Donald? Is “first come, first served” the proper principle to apply in such cases?

Bankrupting the Band?

You are an attorney representing a rock group. Recently the group has told you that it wants to get out of its present recording contract in order to take advantage of a much better offer. The group’s contract is a ‘new kid’ agreement common in the recording industry. The group complains, and you agree, that the terms of the contract heavily favor the recording company. For example, although the contract calls for the group to make eight records, the company can drop the group at any time. In contrast, however, under the contract, your client (the rock group) cannot terminate the agreement at will (i.e. whenever it wants to), but instead must stay with the recording company and make all eight recordings. These could take twelve year to produce, however.

The rock group entered into the contract, before you represented them, at a time when the members were all just out of high school. In your opinion however, had you been there to represent them, you probably could not have secured a much better deal because the above kind of contractual terms are standard throughout the recording industry. In this regard, record companies say they have to rely upon ‘new kid’ contracts to balance the financial risk of signing and producing many new artists, most of whom do not pan out.

A lawsuit requires a court to release the group from its contact could go on for years. You know about another legal strategy, however, that could generate the same result much sooner- declaring bankruptcy. Under federal bankruptcy law, the courts may free debtors from contracts the court views as burdensome. The purpose of the bankruptcy law is to enable debtors to make a fresh start, and not simply to make it possible for individuals to get out of contracts they dislike. Nonetheless, you realize, although you have not yet shared this with the rock group, that it might be able to get out of the contract if the group members all rapidly accumulated large debts that might convince a judge that they financially bankrupt.

What do you do?