A real moral dilemma
I conducted a Google search for the exact phrase "a moral dilemma". I got a web page called Radium: Narrative of a Moral Dilemma. I need something to make ethics more relevant to me personally, and this page looks like just what the doctor ordered. It is an assignment "about becoming a character in an ethical real life dilemma".
First, "[w]hat are the chemical properties of the element radium?"
Well, I just performed a search using that question as the search phrase. The answer to it does not seem at all enlightening to a lay person. But Pierre Curie showed that radium could damage tissue.
Second, "[w]here did the name of this element come from?"
The Latin word for 'ray', 'radius', because it emits energy rays.
"Briefly describe the life of Marie Curie. Was she always a scientist or did she have other occupations? Be sure to include when and how she discovered Radium. What are the theories about how she died? What was unusual about her life as a scientist?"
Certainly by the time she studied at the Sorbonne, she was only ever a scientist. However, before this time, she worked as a governess. This was to raise money for her older sister Bronya's tuition at medical school in Paris and her accommodation there. In return, Bronya would help subsidize Maria's education when she was able. Marie published her discovery of Radium in December 1898. She discovered Radium from a strongly radioactive fraction of pitchblende, which contained mostly barium. Her husband Pierre and his brother Jacques invented the device used to discover its radioactivity. A new kind of electrometer, it could measure extremely low electrical currents. None of the specialists who examined Marie could diagnose the illness that eventually killed her. Suspecting tuberculosis, several advised a stay at a sanatorium in Switzerland. A medical expert from Geneva eventually diagnosed her with aplastic anaemia. The modern diagnosis, however, is that she died from leukaemia. What was unusual about her life as a scientist, at the time, was that she was a woman. In 1906, she became the first woman professor at the Sorbonne. She was the only woman who was invited to attend the 1911 Solvay Congress. And in 1995, she became the first woman interred at the Panthèon on the basis of her own achievements.
"What knowledge was available about the hazards of Radium exposure prior to 1940?"
Almost none. It was known to damage tissue, but it was not known that it would accumulate in the body, or increase risk of various diseases, including leukaemia.
I can see the basis of the moral dilemma being depicted in the rest of the article. Uncovered army medical records show that you were treated with Radium in 1943. You are now suffering from a number of problems that could be the result of Radium exposure. Is the army liable for what happened to you?
I think that they are. They told you that the treatment was safe, and it certainly was not. I think that if you are an institution in the position of telling a patient that a treatment is safe, then you should be held liable if you are wrong about this. The extent of the liability can be commensurate with the consequences of the falsehood. In this case, the army should shell out for the treatment for your problems. You've also got a retarded son in your custody with a heart condition. This could also well be the result of radium exposure to you, so they should shell out for his care also.
I don't think that there's any problem with that. I can see the dilemma if you thought that someone couldn't be held responsible for consequences they could not have foreseen. But I do not think that such reasoning applies here. A doctor who treats a patient has a duty of care. If he or she is administering a treatment that is experimental, then he or she is liable if this treatment proves to be harmful. I think that this is true independently how much was actually known of the hazards of radium exposure at the time.
Okay, that's one dilemma. The assignment, however, requires that you provide at least one more dilemma.
Well, the liability of the army seems to be the overriding dilemma. I do not see what other dilemmas might ensue. I mean, the son's congenital conditions cannot be considered as separate issues. They were probably the result of genetic mutations caused by the radium treatment. I can see trying to create a separate dilemma by trying to separate the son's problems from the father's, but this seems artificial. Equally, the army had a clear obligation to tell the truth about what they knew about Radium at the time. I can see trying to create a dilemma about what they should tell a soldier. But for me, there is no dilemma, because they simply had an obligation to tell the truth.
Maybe I just see things in black and white. But I find that only rarely are you forced to choose between two options that both seem equally morally disvaluable. In each case in this scenario, the choice seems fairly clear-cut. Sometimes you have to choose between morality and prudence. But this is not a moral dilemma that you face anymore, merely a rational one. I know that people often try to forge dilemmas between deontology and consequentialism, but I have yet to see one convincingly performed. I'll elaborate on this tomorrow.
First, "[w]hat are the chemical properties of the element radium?"
Well, I just performed a search using that question as the search phrase. The answer to it does not seem at all enlightening to a lay person. But Pierre Curie showed that radium could damage tissue.
Second, "[w]here did the name of this element come from?"
The Latin word for 'ray', 'radius', because it emits energy rays.
"Briefly describe the life of Marie Curie. Was she always a scientist or did she have other occupations? Be sure to include when and how she discovered Radium. What are the theories about how she died? What was unusual about her life as a scientist?"
Certainly by the time she studied at the Sorbonne, she was only ever a scientist. However, before this time, she worked as a governess. This was to raise money for her older sister Bronya's tuition at medical school in Paris and her accommodation there. In return, Bronya would help subsidize Maria's education when she was able. Marie published her discovery of Radium in December 1898. She discovered Radium from a strongly radioactive fraction of pitchblende, which contained mostly barium. Her husband Pierre and his brother Jacques invented the device used to discover its radioactivity. A new kind of electrometer, it could measure extremely low electrical currents. None of the specialists who examined Marie could diagnose the illness that eventually killed her. Suspecting tuberculosis, several advised a stay at a sanatorium in Switzerland. A medical expert from Geneva eventually diagnosed her with aplastic anaemia. The modern diagnosis, however, is that she died from leukaemia. What was unusual about her life as a scientist, at the time, was that she was a woman. In 1906, she became the first woman professor at the Sorbonne. She was the only woman who was invited to attend the 1911 Solvay Congress. And in 1995, she became the first woman interred at the Panthèon on the basis of her own achievements.
"What knowledge was available about the hazards of Radium exposure prior to 1940?"
Almost none. It was known to damage tissue, but it was not known that it would accumulate in the body, or increase risk of various diseases, including leukaemia.
I can see the basis of the moral dilemma being depicted in the rest of the article. Uncovered army medical records show that you were treated with Radium in 1943. You are now suffering from a number of problems that could be the result of Radium exposure. Is the army liable for what happened to you?
I think that they are. They told you that the treatment was safe, and it certainly was not. I think that if you are an institution in the position of telling a patient that a treatment is safe, then you should be held liable if you are wrong about this. The extent of the liability can be commensurate with the consequences of the falsehood. In this case, the army should shell out for the treatment for your problems. You've also got a retarded son in your custody with a heart condition. This could also well be the result of radium exposure to you, so they should shell out for his care also.
I don't think that there's any problem with that. I can see the dilemma if you thought that someone couldn't be held responsible for consequences they could not have foreseen. But I do not think that such reasoning applies here. A doctor who treats a patient has a duty of care. If he or she is administering a treatment that is experimental, then he or she is liable if this treatment proves to be harmful. I think that this is true independently how much was actually known of the hazards of radium exposure at the time.
Okay, that's one dilemma. The assignment, however, requires that you provide at least one more dilemma.
Well, the liability of the army seems to be the overriding dilemma. I do not see what other dilemmas might ensue. I mean, the son's congenital conditions cannot be considered as separate issues. They were probably the result of genetic mutations caused by the radium treatment. I can see trying to create a separate dilemma by trying to separate the son's problems from the father's, but this seems artificial. Equally, the army had a clear obligation to tell the truth about what they knew about Radium at the time. I can see trying to create a dilemma about what they should tell a soldier. But for me, there is no dilemma, because they simply had an obligation to tell the truth.
Maybe I just see things in black and white. But I find that only rarely are you forced to choose between two options that both seem equally morally disvaluable. In each case in this scenario, the choice seems fairly clear-cut. Sometimes you have to choose between morality and prudence. But this is not a moral dilemma that you face anymore, merely a rational one. I know that people often try to forge dilemmas between deontology and consequentialism, but I have yet to see one convincingly performed. I'll elaborate on this tomorrow.
Comments