Kantian Deontology And Lies To The Family

Case study 2.3 pertains to the situation where a family’s daughter is subjected to renal failure and needs a kidney transplant in order to survive. The tests show that the father is a donor match, and the donation will be the daughter’s best chance for survival. However, the father is afraid to give up his kidney. The father asks me (the doctor) to lie and tell the family that none of them are an appropriate match. The main ethical issue in this case would be whether or not the doctor lies to the family about the father’s test results. What would I do in this situation? To help answer this question we will evaluate this ethical issue by using two moral theories; act utilitarianism, and kantian deontology.

We can evaluate this situation by

By using Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative we can gain insight on what is the right thing to do. First, we can use Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative which is universalizing the maxim. However before we test our actions against the first formulation, we must consider our actions a maxim (rule). Now lets consider the action where I lie to the family and test it maxim against the first formulation. We must ask ourselves, is this maxim consistent? The answer is no. The maxim of lying is considered to be inconsistent which means that it cannot be universalized. Reason being, if lying is universalized then everybody would lie and there would be distrust among the public. When this happens, a lie cannot work because no one would believe the lie. At this point we say the lie is self defeating. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative tells us we must treat people as ends and not means. When we evaluate the ethical issue of telling the truth to the family against the fathers wishes it is reasonable to say that we are looking at the father as a means to the doctors goal of healing the daughter as an end. It is reasonable to say that we are looking at the father as a means to the doctors goal which is an end. This is morally wrong. Kant tells us that everyone is considered morally equal meaning, no person is more valued than the next. The second formulation suggests that we cannot tell the family that the father is a good