<p>Self Test</p><p>1. Determine whether the following view is better attributed to a deontologist or a consequentialist. </p><p>Euthanasia should be permitted. It is legal in The Netherlands and in Oregon, and with good results. It saves a good deal of pain and allows people to determine their own way to die. People do not have to live with the fear of dying in great pain and/or with loss of dignity.</p><p>Consequentialism</p><p>This seems like the right answer. The claim is made that the results where euthanasia is legal have been good. This is a consequentialist claim, as is the claim that euthanasia allows people to avoid pain. However, the statement also mentions self-determination, often a strong point in deontological views. And it brings up human dignity, also a Kantian point typically involving respect. However, both of these, self-determination and human dignity, can be thought of in terms of gaining happiness. So, on balance, the view expressed seems to be that of a consequentialist, but with deontological support.</p><p>Deontologist</p><p>This does not seem like the right answer. The claim is made that the results where euthanasia is legal have been good. This is a consequentialist claim, as is the claim that euthanasia allows people to avoid pain. However, the statement also mentions self-determination, often a strong point in deontological views. And it brings up human dignity, also a Kantian point typically involving respect. However, both of these, self-determination and human dignity, can be thought of in terms of gaining happiness. So, on balance, the view expressed seems to be that of a consequentialist, but with deontological support.</p><p>2. Who is more likely to argue that a lie can be told to avoid great embarrassment? </p><p>Consequentialist</p><p>Correct. A consequentialist is likely to take into account a person’s embarrassment. A deontologist who views lying as wrong is unlikely to think that being embarrassed by the truth is a good reason to lie.</p><p>Deontologist Incorrect. A consequentialist is likely to take into account a person’s embarrassment. A deontologist who views lying as wrong is unlikely to think that being embarrassed by the truth is a good reason to lie.</p><p>1 3. Who is more likely to argue that a patient who fears life-saving surgery should not be coerced to into having it by using aggressive tone of voice and language? </p><p>Consequentialist</p><p>Incorrect. A consequentialist considers saving a life to be, in typical circumstances, a major good -- a genuinely good consequence. Deontologists view autonomy, allowing people to make their own decisions, as a major way to show respect. Autonomy may be compromised by an overly aggressive approach to gaining consent. So, a deontologist is more likely to accept a patient’s decision not to have surgery and would reject aggressively attempting to change the patient’s mind. </p><p>Deontologist</p><p>Correct. A consequentialist considers saving a life to be, in typical circumstances, a major good -- a genuinely good consequence. Deontologists view autonomy, allowing people to make their own decisions, as a major way to show respect. Autonomy may be compromised by an overly aggressive approach to gaining consent. So, a deontologist is more likely to accept a patient’s decision not to have surgery and would reject aggressively attempting to change the patient’s mind. </p><p>4. A consequentialist is faced with the following choice.</p><p>CPR may be applied with a 15% chance of success. However, success may also mean that the patient will live a seriously impaired life. There seems to be only a very small chance the patient will survive CPR and live a normal life. However, without CPR the patient will almost surely die. </p><p>Which of the following would a consequentialist consider in his or her moral reasoning:</p><p>Whether the patient has a right to CPR. [If incorrect is indicated, the user should not select that feature. Sometimes either answer is OK. Bill, we need to figure out how to respond.]</p><p>Incorrect. A consequentialist considers results not rights.</p><p>Whether the person’s life would be worth living after CPR.</p><p>Correct. A worthwhile life is a consequence that is most important in making this decision from a typical consequentialist point of view.</p><p>2 Whether death would provide relief of suffering.</p><p>Correct. Relief of suffering would be a desirable consequence. </p><p>Whether the patient has an advance directive prohibiting CPR. A consequentialist might take this into account, due to legal consequences. But a consequentialist is more likely than a deontologist to ignore an advance directive.</p><p>5. A deontologist is faced with the same choice, repeated below:</p><p>CPR may be applied with a 15% chance of success. However, success may also mean that the patient will live a seriously impaired life. There seems to be only a very small chance the patient will survive CPR and live a normal life. However, without CPR the patient will almost surely die. </p><p>Would a deontologist consider in his or her moral reasoning:</p><p>Whether the patient has a right to CPR.</p><p>Correct. A deontologist takes rights very seriously.</p><p>Whether the person’s life would be worth living after CPR.</p><p>Incorrect. This is a consequence that most deontologists would not consider crucial in making the decision as to whether performing CPR is appropriate.</p><p>Whether death would provide relief of suffering.</p><p>Incorrect. This is a consequence that many deontologists would not consider crucial in making the decision as to whether CPR is appropriate.</p><p>Whether the patient has an advance directive prohibiting CPR.</p><p>A deontologist is likely to take an advance directive very seriously. It is an expression of patient autonomy and so a violation of an advance directive would, typically, be considered disrespectful. </p><p>3</p>