Discussion: Various Interpretation of Group Members

Discussion Board Answers
Your name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
1 First, a review question: Retake a look at your group’s responses on the Discussion Board for last week. How would you propose revising the group’s responses to the question on Matthew and Harold Donnelly in light of Tuesday’s class—how would the Hedonic Calculus apply to the question whether Harold might have been justified in shooting Matthew even if Matthew didn’t ask for it or said he didn’t want it?
According to the group members’ consensus, every member has his utilitarian interpretation and understanding of the significant ethical theories concerning health care ethics. Recently, the group has answered questions involving Matthew and Harold Donnelly. The group decided that the actions of Harold Donnelly cannot be justified if Matthew did not beg to be killed. The group’s decision aligns with the Olaedo’s viewpoint that questions the actions that would benefit all the stakeholders to create a balance between happiness and unhappiness. Moreover, the group associated balance with real-world situations such as the principles involving physician-assisted suicide, where the physician is the primary factor leading to the patient’s ultimate demise.
The group’s answer may also be analyzed using the Hedonic calculus, an algorithm that uses the ratio of pleasure to pain inflicted on the individual affected by the action. Using this principle, I can revise my group’s answer this way:
In this case, even when Matthew did not ...