Please help! "A cost to an individual can be justified by a benefit to the group"?

Question

"A cost to an individual can be justified by a benefit to the group" What factors influence the rights of an individual over that of a group, (the answer has to be medical related) Thank you so much for your help

Answer 1

The best example I can think of is in clinical trials of new drugs.

In a double-blind trial some patients are given the drug and some are given a placebo. Neither the prescriber nor the patient knows which they are getting and results of the treatment are compiled by someone independent of the doctor and patient.

In the case of a successful drug, then a patient given a placebo will make no improvement or in the worst case might actually die, but the group of patients with the same condition will benefit because a new drug will become available which will help improve the quality of their lives.

In this case, the cost to the individual who remains ill, get worse or even dies might be justified because before the advent of the new drug they would have had little or no chance of getting any better.

However, if the drug turns out to be ineffective or even dangerous then the placebo group might fare as well or even better than the treatment group.

In both cases, the benefits to the group outweigh the benefits to at least some of the individuals. However, if offered the chance to partake in clinical trials a patient always has the right to decline outright.

That is one example - the first recipients of organ transplants are another.

I think the key thing that justifies these decisions is that individuals have a right to not be involved at all and their involvement is as their own risk.

The opposite of this is where groups (e.g. prisoners, soldiers) are used to test the effects of chemicals or drugs (or even nuclear explosions) without being informed of what is being done to them. In this case there may well be benefits to other people but is it justifiable to take away any individual's free choice?

Answer 2

The mentality that the good of the many over-rides the good of the one is used to justify all sorts of things. Take an example of the welfare state. A few are heavily taxed in order to make life better for the many, right? That takes money away from those who would use it to create jobs by investing in businesses. The net result is fewer jobs created so there are more needy. It makes us feel good to help somebody else and taxing the other guy isn't so bad, is it? But it comes out of a closed system. Every dime the big earners is taxed eventually comes from you while creating a larger low income class who are unable to find jobs. (Yes, that is simplified but the principle still works)

Another example would be any law that forces a person to take some action to protect themselves. It reduces a burden on society by reducing some expense. But, in the long term it decreases individualism and increases reliance on the government. Then government must grow to both enforce this reliance and to administer the system people rely on. As a result the person is less empowered, government takes responsibility ofr our daily decisions and the tax burden grows correspondingly adding an increasing burden on the economy. The group as a whole loses.

In short, there is no instance where a decision to burden the few to benefit the group will actually benefit the group in the long term.

Answer 3

You might consider using public medical insurance (such as Medicare in Australia) as an example. Premiums are paid for by nearly everyone along with their taxes, but the benefits accrue to society via public hospitals, free immunisation etc.
Also extremely expensive drugs may not be available where cheaper alternatives exist, even if they are more effective, because the cheaper drugs will be available to more people for the same overall cost. I belive this is called the Utilitarian ethical approach, where the greater good is considered when assessing benefits.

Answer 4

Take euthanasia as an example of the right of an individual not to suffer and the benifit to society as a whole (financially, socially, morally) ,and the benifit to the five or six people who are waiting for organ transplants in order to live a normal life. Can you really call this a "cost" to the individual who is now at eternal rest?

Answer 5

This is really a moral question and has to be answered by each individual for himself. It sometimes has to be answered by a society as a whole. When the U.S. bombs a site to kill a terrorist who can potentially harm thousands of people, but also kills an innocent family in executing this terrorist, it is placing the rights of the society over the rights of the innocent family. We as a society make these decisions all the time. When we send people off to war we make the same decision. Those fighting and sacrificing their lives are benefiting those that are not fighting. Your question is philosophical.

Answer 6

I believe post code lottery prescription availability is a good example of this. Essentially what NICE says goes - if they decide a drug should not be used in England & Wales due to cost, then we cannot be treated, even though there is clearly a licence for it. Rationale = expense. For the cost of a particualr treatment which may save or proling one life, many can be treated & saved in other areas.
In the oinstance below, a drug unavailable for this reason has been given the green light by the SMC for use in Scotland.

Answer 7

That replaced into the part of her plan i did not like. So, you're making it needed for anybody to purchase coverage and then at the same time as they could be able to't arise with the money for to do it....you advantageous them. it is extra money they do no longer have. no longer anybody is fortunate to have a job that promises coverage at a sensible fee. So...you've, for instance, a pair who're both operating for minimum salary, or slightly larger wages and when you consider that it is a eating position or gas station (someplace that doesn't furnish coverage) and they could be able to't arise with the money for to purchase it from an outdoors source, they'll be fined. charges are slightly getting paid, youthful ones are slightly getting fed and the electric powered bill is dangerously on the point of be shutting off.....yet, they ought to pay an outstanding because they chosen to feed their youthful ones rather of shopping for coverage. AND, it truly is in basic terms an get mutually. some human beings are not even making that a lot and there are countless human beings at residing house on incapacity or at residing house to look after the youngsters because this is more low priced than daycare and they are surviving on one income. this is ridiculous.

Answer 8

Not sure. Are you talking about herd immunity. ie remote possibility of adverse reaction in one individual v's protection of vulnerable in community at large.

IMHO medicine is always practised as a one-to-one relationship so individual needs outweighs public health. But then again Spock say " the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Surprisingly caring response from manifestation of evil?

Answer 9

Mr. Spock said, " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". That's good enough for me. Dr. McCoy was there when he said it, so ....Yes definitely medical related - anyway the star ship Enterprise would have been atomised but for his selfless sacrifice, so I think that the benefits to that particular group is obvious.

Answer 10

Medical - related? This is clear. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath to help individuals. They have no duty to society other than their citizen's duties.