Expensive Health Care for a Killer

  • Uncategorized

ExpensiveHealth Care for a Killer

ExpensiveHealth Care for a Killer

LewisVaughn bioethics summary

LewisVaughn writes interesting philosophical artwork addressing the way inwhich people consider morality issues in life concerning areas likemedicine, bioethics, and critical thinking. He sensitizes majorcontroversies arguing them in moral theories and principles. Thispaper synchronizes Vaughn’s bioethics case about criminal dignityand the normative morality through which people assume the properactions in treating an ailing criminal. The criminal who is aconvicted murderer is ill. Nonetheless, he receives an expensivedialysis procedure to sustain his life at the expense of the verysame taxpayers he offended. On the other hand, the poor, howeverinnocent, lack the resources to access medication. The reviews inthis paper compare and contrast Kantian and utilitarianism theories,try to solve the case.


Whywould one save a dying criminal? More so, the criminal is a convictfor murder and even if he gets a donor for his kidneys, he isawaiting a death sentence. Even so, why should anyone prioritize suchexpensive health care to a criminal found guilty of patronizing ateenager, at the expense of poor taxpayers who even are unable toaccess the medication the criminal is enjoying in jail?


TheKantian theory bases its argument on morals that greatly confides inrules. It focuses more on permissiveness of an action depending onmoral obligations whether right or wrong. The criminal is wrong bykilling an eighteen-year-old. However, the counter judgment issupposed to reattribute the criminal’s behavior. Similarly, thiscase questions the judgment to allocate health care to the samecriminal, denying him health care even though expensive, itcounteracts to albeit the crime. Assuming that the criminal ishenceforth an autonomous object with no guiding morals, which isagainst Kant’s theoretical principle to safeguard life. Treatmentand health care is a form of reattributed-justice that acknowledgesthe criminal’s human dignity/respect.

Utilitarianismconsequentially focuses on a hedonistic variety of pain and pleasureto dominate moral ethics, for instance actions are right if theyenhance happiness (pleasure) the vice versa is also true.Theoretically, one achieves morality by maximizing the pleasure(good) utility. Consider that when the criminal killed, he broughtpain to the girl and her acquittances but pleasuring himself. In apsychophysical retribution, denying him (criminal) treatment willkill him pleasuring to the world as it discourages crime and savesthe expenses for the poor sick people. Where is morality in valuingself-interest for pleasure in undeterminable future?


Kantiantheory is the most suitable theory to moralize people action tohealth care for criminals as well as any other individuals


Kantinsists that all people be equal and is a mere means that apply toall individuals of a rational nature including criminals, poor, andthe sick. Kant, therefore, regards denying criminal treatments as itviolates this principle and maxim moral obligation for the sake ofpleasure for poor and innocent, thus unacceptable. Unlike Kant,Utilitarianism that is a self-pleasuring motivation, eye a proclaimedless painful consequence such as killing the criminal. However, thereis a poor lack of certainty that they will receive affordabletreatment after denying treatment to the criminal. Utilitarianismdoes not achieve any moral obligation because morals do not takepleasures or pains forms.


Vaughn,L. (2012). Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press.

Close Menu