Virginia Bruch Episode Ethics

The ethical issues at hand were whether or not the man who killed the different people throughout the episode should be put to death or if he should be instead placed in a mental institution because his condition made him not fit to go through a fair trial. Once his condition was pinpointed, there was a new ethical issue of if it was the insurance company’s fault that these people were killed as a result of withholding information from the patient. The stake-holders in the case were the man, the man’s family, and the insurance company. The two main possible courses of action for this case are that a) the man could be sentenced to the death penalty for his actions, the insurance company would not be charged, and the man’s family would suffer the loss of a father, and b) that the insurance company be charged for withholding information from the patient, inadvertently causing the death of these people, the man would be put in a mental institution because he would be considered not fit to stand trial, and the family would be more at peace knowing that their father was still alive and was being taken care of. The consequentialist approach would agree with option a, because it would say that the man should be sentenced to the death penalty because it would be for the greatest good for people to not be put in the danger of having somebody alive that could potentially kill more people. The deontological tool would agree with option a as well, because it would not be ok for this to be applied to the entire world. The line between what would be considered “fit” and “not fit” to trial may become blurred, and this would not be ok, especially if it were to apply to all people. The aspiration tool would agree with option b because it would sympathize with the man, and it would think the insurance company as not virtuous. I agree with the aspiration tool because while the man did kill people, I do not think he is fit to trial and it would not harm people to have him in a mental institution. Also, it would be impossible to judge whether or not he would have killed these people had he insurance company informed him of his illness and he was mentally healthy. According to his wife, he was a very loving father and he would not have done these things had he been healthy. I think that Alex should prosecute the insurance company and that the insurance rep should agree to settle, because it would be some compensation for the family. Also, I think that the insurance company should have to inform the public health department of these communicable illnesses.