Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
An example of this myopia is the recent argument for
stem cell research because reproductive clinics are ''just
going to throw the embryos away anyway, so why not get
something good out of them by using them in stem cell
research?'' The life cycle view would require that the whole
process, including the ethics of the treatment of embryos
and other aspects of reproductive technologies, be part of
the whole argument. In this case the question is not limited
to ''What is my duty?'' (known as the deontological view) or
''What is the best result?'' (known as the consequentialist
view), but is really ''What is going on here?'' (i.e., a
rational-relationship view, which considers the entirety of
the issue, including duties, consequences, and the means
toward these consequences).
Amy the engineer
The design approach advantage is not limited to the big
issues, but may be even more directly beneficial to the
individual decisions (i.e., microethical decisions) of the
practicing engineer.
As mentioned, according to Whitbeck, ethical questions
are all too often incorrectly presented as ''dilemmas.''
A dilemma is defined as a forced choice between two
alternatives that are exactly and equally unfavorable. This
leads to the representation of moral problems as though
they were forced choices between two (or more) equally
unwelcome alternatives. Again, this approach tries to make
the solutions less messy by ''pretending'' that they are well-
posed. We do this frequently in engineering, such as
assuming ''spherical chickens'' when designing a poultry
processing plant. Such a misrepresentation of moral
problems as dilemmas implies that the only possible
responses are the proposed courses of action (all of which
are objectionable), stifling creative attempts to offer better
alternatives. In a way, this is an over-prescribed design.
Engineers perform best when they are not overly
constrained by the client.
Whitbeck
9
shares the so-called Heinz dilemma
recounted by Carol Gilligan in her topic
In a Different
Voice.
10
Lawrence Kohlberg, a founder of moral
development theory, posited to children a dilemma of
whether a man named Heinz should steal a drug he cannot
afford to save the life of his wife. Gilligan describes the
performance of Jake, a child who does well by Kohlberg's
criteria:
performed. What is notable is that Jake has not only learned the
game but also recognizes it as an abstract puzzle; he aptly
describes it as ''sort of like a math problem with human beings.''
When ethical problems are constructed as abstract math
problems with human beings it is no wonder that they have
nothing much to do with moral life.
Another young respondent, Amy, refused to abide by
the arbitrary conditions and constraints. As a result, she did
not perform well by Kohlberg's criteria because she
insisted on trying to work out a better response to Heinz's
problem. When Amy was asked whether Heinz should steal
the drug, she proposed new alternatives:
Well, I don't think so. I think there might be other ways besides
stealing it, like if he could borrow the money or make a loan or
something, but he really shouldn't steal the drug but his wife
shouldn't die either.
Asked why he should not steal the drug Amy replies:
If he stole the drug, he might save his wife then, but if he did, he
might have to go to jail, and then his wife might get sicker again,
and he couldn't get more of the drug, and it might not be good.
So, they should really just talk it out and find some other way to
make the money.
Gilligan interprets Amy's solution as ''a narrative of
relationships that extends over time.'' Like the essay
question's advantage over the multiple-choice test, the
narrative can express ''the dynamic character of a situation
with its unfolding possibilities and resolutions.'' This avoids
the need for abstraction.
Amy's answers follow an engineering paradigm for
problem solving. She looks for numerous possibilities and
alternative solutions. She refuses to be pigeonholed into
predetermined solutions. She is put off by the arbitrariness
of the design landscape, and seeks accommodation of her
client's needs. Amy deserves more credit than Gilligan
offers. Her response is not simply addressing relationships,
as Gilligan asserts. In fact, as Whitbeck points out, Amy did
not even identify the failure of Heinz and his spouse's
relationship as the result of Heinz's jail sentence. She was
more concerned that Heinz's wife may need the drug again.
Amy was still seeking a solution to the root problem (need
for the drug) and providing a sustainable solution. As an
''engineer,'' Amy is more concerned that the process
supports acceptable outcomes on an ongoing basis than
merely solving a short-term problem.
The principal lesson seems to be that cases can be
arbitrary and can limit engineering (and ethics) creativity, by
imposing a forced choice between two (or a few) right and
wronganswers. Amy, asmost goodengineersdo, beginswith
an open-ended set of possibilities and brainstorms to arrive at
an acceptable means of solving the problem. Next, she looks
at the feasible options and explores one or more reasonable
solutions, including attempts to persuade the pharmacist to
help, obtaining a loan, and other practical actions.
Jake, at eleven, is clear from the outset that Heinz should steal the
drug. Constructing the dilemma, as Kohlberg did, as a conflict
between the values of property and life, Jake discerns the logical
priority of life anduses that logic to justify his choice: For one thing,
a human life is worth more than money, and if the druggist only
makes $1000, he is still going to live, but if Heinz doesn't steal the
drug, his wife is going to die. (Why is life worth more thanmoney?)
Because people are all different and so you couldn't get Heinz's
wife again. Jake understands the game to be one of finding the
covering ''principles,'' ordering them, and cranking out a solution,
and this is the abstract exercise that he has successfully
Continued
