Ethics and Decision-Making

Ethics and Decision-Making
Introduction
Dilemmas are part of life, but their intriguing nature often leaves many people confused. In this paper, I will review the friendship between John – my new friend and a rational client who just recovered from a dangerous accident – and myself, a party to the hospital staff. Having learned and mastered how to use a specifically designed electric wheelchair, he asked me to help him with it when the hospital releases him. I thought John just wanted the equipment to continue his practices with it, but I still asked why he needed it. He confided in me and said that he wanted to go to the top roof and throw away the chair to the other side of the hospital because he was fed up leading the life he had. In this assignment, I will describe my step of action, justifying my position to whichever party I pick between the hospital and my patient/friend. Lastly, I will review what Kant Immanuel recommend in his work, and give my verdict on his provisions.
The Decision
Although I wanted to give John the wheelchair, I had to rethink that idea after his response. I thought he wanted it to continue training about how to use it, but it turned out that the equipment reminded him of the pain he experienced, so he felt that getting rid of the chair was the best way to let go of his torrid time at the hospital. In as much as denying John the chance to run the wheelchair off the other side of the hospital would appear as if I am betraying our friendship, I would do it.

My belief is that the best way to decide the best thing to do requires an application of the ethical concepts – ethos, pathos, and logos. With the latter, I would give John the reasons (logic) for refusing to grant him the wish to get rid of the chair.
Even though the chair was particularly designed to help John recover, it was still the hospital’s property, to which neither John nor I have ownership rights. Giving him the authority to get rid of it would mean that I have the right to make such a decision, which is not the case, so he would only get help from the administration. However, there is no need to make such a move as it only appears irrational. The chair might have been specially designed to suit John’s case, but it would still help another patient in the future; probably one with a similar problem. Moreover, the hospital spent a lot of resources to make the chair and throwing it away because it now looks “useless” is a waste of the money, materials, and time spent in making it. Most importantly, allowing John to run off the equipment to the side of the hospital is a violation of the organization’s culture and would evoke the administration to either punish or even terminate my services at the hospital. Since I did not want any of those outcomes, I could not let John get rid of the chair.
Just as seeing the equipment provoked John’s feelings – reminding him of the pain he endured – allowing him to run it off is likely to annoy the hospital administration. While my stand is not likely to impress John, the administrator’s reaction will cause him, even more, harm. For example, the hospital might order him to replace the chair, extend his stay at the hospital until he pays for running it off, or even ask him to leave before completing his medication. John must have used our friendship to ask for the chair and confide in me why he wanted it, meaning that he would be disappointed if I fail to grant his wish. At the same time, John might understand that I protected him from the inevitable repercussions of running the chair off if I explain to him my stand because I am his friend.
Kant’s Approach
According to Kant (1993), John’s desire to run off the chair is a “good with conditions or without qualification.” In his views, “a good (unconditional) will probably feature an indispensable condition even to be considered worthy of bringing happinessCITATION Imm93 p 23 l 1033 (Kant 23).” The ‘good’ in John’s idea of running off the chair is ending the pain it reminds him. However, the indispensable conditions that surround it make it unworthy of happiness. In my opinion, Kant’s assertions are right. Just as he explains, not all good things bring joy as is the case in John’s case. Even if I granted him the chance to run off the chair, the pain will not end as going to the same place he had the accident would have a similar impact. In addition to that, granting John’s wish could make him happy (relieved), but his happiness will be short-lived and end as soon as the hospital administration punishes him for his actions.
Conclusion
Dilemmas make decision-making a challenge to many people. Often they find it confusing to choose one of the two available options, but such a task would appear doable if one focuses on the ethical factors of the situation at hand. For example, I had a problem deciding whether to grant my friend, John, the wish to run off the electric wheelchair and denying him the chance to avoid the wrath of the hospital administration. Similarly, anyone dealing with a daunting situation which requires his/her decision should adopt the approach outlined in this paper to reach a solution.
Work Cited
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: with On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns. New York: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.