Consider the following situations:
1. Sue Rodriguez, a mother in her early thirties, died slowly of Lou Gehrig’s disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the
day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She asked the Courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez
took her fight all the way to the highest court in the land. She failed to get euthanasia and assisted suicide legalized in Canada. Has this person been treated in an unethical way?
2. A lawyer who has taken on a client accused of the violent rape and beating of a 16-year-old girl. The beating was so severe that the girl sustained eight broken bones and the loss of one of
her eyes. During the course of the trial the lawyer has come to believe that her client is guilty of this crime, and that he is a very dangerous person who is likely to commit similar crimes, if he
is found innocent of the charges against him. The lawyer believes that if she does the very best job that she can, as this man’s defense lawyer, she can have him found not guilty. But if she does a
poor job, her client will be found guilty and imprisoned. What is the ethically correct thing for this lawyer to do?
3. A controversial piece of research is currently underway at a University School of Medicine. The research is investigating the transmission of the AIDS virus from mothers to their fetuses,
by infecting female monkeys with the disease. This is done on monkeys already pregnant and on monkeys before they become pregnant. The latter group is then at various intervals impregnated through
artificial insemination. There is no doubt that this research is causing suffering for the monkeys. However, most of the researchers don’t believe that the monkeys are being caused undue harm at
watching their babies being born sick and then taken away from them. In private, some of them admit that this would be the proper subject for an expert in animal behavior to study. As biologists,
they are not in the best position to judge. Basically, their response to criticism is “Monkeys are not people, and, therefore, don’t have the rights of people.” A group called The Progressive
Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) is trying through the courts to get this research stopped. They claim that it is poorly designed and is violating the monkeys’ rights. The university defends the
research as necessary to scientific progress. How should we make ethical sense of this research? Is it an unethical violation of the monkeys’ rights, or an unfortunate, yet necessary, sacrifice for
the benefit of human beings? Should something be done to stop this research or should it be allowed to continue?