Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The principle of double effect
It is tempting to jump in and start analyzing the
student's responses for right and wrong elements. That
is the typical case-based approach. That is to say, phi-
losophers and ethicists commonly apply ''casuistry,'' an
approach to determine right and wrong decisions or
behavior by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical
rules. Among the problems with this approach is that it
forces us to judge. Engineers, on the other hand, are
problem solvers and designers, not judges. We are more
comfortable about building a solution than about sitting
in judgment (see Teachable Moment: The Engineer as
Agent
versus
Judge). However, to prime the pump, let
us begin to think about why the students responded as
they did.
Teachable moment: trust
Consider the people whom you can trust. Write down at
least three reasons that they can be trusted. These can be
intrinsic qualities, such as, to your knowledge they have
never lied to you. They may also be extrinsic constraints,
such as they are duty bound by law or a professional
standard (e.g., a medical doctor). Often, they are
combinations of the two (e.g., a trusted family doctor).
Explain how such trust applies to the practice of
engineering. Discuss the types and degrees of controls
that the engineering profession has over its members
(extrinsic controls), and how much the social contract
with engineering depends on characteristics of the
individual engineer (intrinsic controls).
Teachable moment: the engineer as agent versus
judge
4. A proposed solution must do all the following (in
addition to being reasonably secure against accidents
and miscarriages):
Achieve the desired performance or end - In the
case of an ethical problem this might be to fulfill
some moral responsibility, a professional
responsibility, or a family responsibility.
Conform to given specifications or desired criteria -
For an ethical problem, these specifications might
include meeting the standards of care for one's
profession, and not taking so much time that one
fails in other particular commitments.
Be consistent with (usually unstated) background
constraints, for example, that one not violate
anyone's human rights and that one minimize the
infringement of other rights.
Much like engineering design problems, ethical
dilemmas are often ill-posed. Case-based approaches
often erroneously assume that an engineer is confronted
with a well-posed ethical problem; that is, one that is
uniquely solvable (i.e., a unique solution exists) and one
that is dependent upon a continuous application of data.
That is to say, cases are best when a solution to the
problem exists, the solution is unique, and the solution
depends continuously on the data. So, if ethical cases were
solved by something akin to the Laplace's equation,
5
casuistry is the way to go. By contrast, an ill-posed
problem does not have a unique solution and can only be
solved by discontinuous applications of data, meaning that
even very small errors or perturbations can lead to large
deviations in possible solutions.
6
Engineers are well aware
of the complexity and challenge, as well as of the need to
solve ill-posed problems. After all, most emergent
Philosopher Caroline Whitbeck is widely
recognized as one of the first and
strongest advocates of a design-based
approach to professional ethics. She
accentuated the synthetic as well as
analytic elements in responses to
moral problems.
In the 1980s and 1990s, she developed the parallel
between ethical problems and design problems. She broke
new ground in active learning methods in the teaching of
engineering ethics and the responsible conduct of
research, especially methods that place the learner in the
position of the agent who must actually respond to the
problem (rather than in the position of a judge who merely
evaluates responses that have already been constructed).
Among the ethical design criteria are collaboration, trust
and trustworthiness, responsibility, and diligence (opposite
of negligence).
Whitbeck draws four points of analogy between ethical
problems and design problems:
4
1. For interesting or substantive ethical problems, such
as substantive problems of research design, there is
rarely, if ever, a uniquely correct solution or response.
2. Some possible responses are unacceptable - there
are wrong answers even if there is no unique right
answer - and some are better than others.
3. However, solutions may have advantages of different
sorts, such that where there are two candidate
solutions, neither may be clearly better than the
other.
Continued
