Homework #4 id: u1710175 Name: Dinara Makhmudova Group

Homework #4

ID: u1710175

Name: Dinara Makhmudova
Group: CSE17-02

1. 
   Ethical values are commonly considered to be too subjective, namely, different from the point of view. Why are there any difference about risk between the risk expert and the public? Is there a possibility that these diverse values can be in harmony?
   

Experts and the public frequently disagree when it comes to risk assessment, indicating a lack of trust among the general public. The reasons for such disagreement are discussed, and it is pointed out that disagreement among experts and lack of full understanding of real risks contributes to skepticism among the public. The notion that people are in general reacting in a highly emotional and non-rational, phobic, manner is rejected. The conditions for risk assessment, and common-sense cognitive dynamics, are better explanations of risk perception. If trust is to be established in a country or community where it is quite low some kind of politically regulated public influence on decision making and risk monitoring is probably needed, e.g. by means of a publicly elected and responsible ombudsman.

2. 
   Many people tend to believe that the sacrifice of the weaker can be justified when it contributed to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Do you believe that this assumption can be justified? What reason can it be provided in order to protect the right of individuals?
   

At one level rights are those claims which protect individuals from being subjected to calculations of pure utility. The promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number cannot justify some violation of an individual's welfare, if that individual has a right to the benefit in question. The most basic utilitarian critique of human rights lies in the assertion that resources are scarce in any society, and especially limited in some. This scarcity inevitably leads to utilitarian calculations to allocate those resources in a way that will maximize the greatest good. In the end, it is argued, all the benefits listed as human rights, even life itself, are subject to the promotion of the greatest good within a society. As such an individual's benefits claimed as a human right may be compromised, diluted, or even completely denied in specific situations where that right has to be weighed against the claim of another individual or of society as a whole. This critique is not necessarily normative, in the sense that this should be the case, but may also stem from the observation that this is how societies do and will function.
Perhaps, the real wonder is that human rights are not more contentious. In many ways, popular political debate simply assumes that human rights exist and they protect all the benefits described in the various international and domestic documents. However, this assumption is one which ignores fundamental problems that must be addressed. The moral force often attributed to human rights cannot simply be asserted without resolving questions about the genesis of human rights, who may hold them, and what particular benefits are protected. 

3. 
   The public considers that “free and informed consent” is extremely important to accepting risk. Why does the public care for autonomy rather than cost and harms?
   

Informed consent means that a patient with decision-making capacity freely agrees to a treatment plan or procedure after an explanation of the diagnosis, the relevant options for treatment (including no treatment) and any related risks and benefits important to him/her. Patient autonomy, defined as the right of self-determination, refers to the ability of a competent patient to make and to carry out important decisions about his/her life, acting in his/her own “best interests”. It is a fundamental moral value that promotes patient wellbeing. Respect for autonomy requires the physician to recognize the patient’s right to make independent choices, to hold certain views and to take certain actions based on personal values and beliefs in the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular: the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law.