Topic: Principlism and Dax Cowart
Central question: Can Principlism render a verdict on the Dax case?
Paper content: Explain and argue for how the Principlist approach to medical ethics as described by Beauchamp and Childress either (A) is able to render a consistent and plausible verdict (a decision about what should be done for Dax) on the Dax case, and if so what that verdict is (i.e., whether the doctors acted rightly or wrongly), OR (B) is unable to render a consistent and plausible verdict on the Dax case, and if so why Principlism is inadequate.
The thesis of your paper will be either (A) or (B).
1 Procedure: (i) State, in an introduction, your paper’s thesis and your main supporting reason for your thesis. (ii) Explain briefly the basic idea behind Principlism as an approach to ethics and the four principles and duties that constitute this approach. (iii) Describe the details of the Dax case including both the main medical details and the conflict. (iv) Explain which of the four principles of Principlism are at issue in the Dax case and whether there is a conflict in the Dax case between the principles and the duties that come from them. (v) Argue for (A) how Principlism offers a solution to the Dax case and the conflict of duties (if there is one) and what that solution is; or for (B) how Principlism fails to offer a solution to the Dax case and the conflict of duties (if there is one) and why.
Write a comment: