Kantians Can't?!

In medicine both Kantian and utilitarian ethics need to be employed to reach solutions to complex and difficult problems. In the ideal world, Kantian ethics would be morally superior to utilitarianism an consequentialism -- the right act is not always the one with the best consequences; Kant argued that this can never make an action right or wrong.

Kant's formulas: (1) act as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means -- people deserve respect -- the ends do not justify the means; (2) act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it would be a universal law -- refrain from making exceptions of ourselves -- universalization. Kant argues that all persons must be treated equally. In our reading regarding the 5 innocent people who need organ transplants (p. 14), the killing of one person for the distribution of organs to the others is morally wrong. This act would certainly be making an exception and treating a person as a mere means! I could not justify this act. However, I can see that Kantian ethics are much more challenging to implement in medicine, to decide what is morally right or wrong and to treat people as "ends" themselves not "means." People do not exist simply to fulfill our purposes...are ther not exceptions? What if he or she is not a rational being? All cases are not ruled out! Utilitarianism can use its belief as an excuse to do something morally wrong in saying it is in the best interest of the whole, like cloning body parts.

I see the Kantian test for universalization similar to the "Golden Rule"-- treat others as you would like others to treate you -- it is not a personal policy but a principle for everyone. I agree with Kant that consistency and universality are part of a concept of moralilty and duty. Thus patients and research subjects must give informed consent before they are treated, also that they are shown respect by telling them the truth...even when the knowledge might be painful. This allows the patient/subject to make their own moral choices. This is good, I agree because Kantianism does not provide a decision procedure for deciding which out of all morally permissive acts is right. Thus giving less guidance to the patient/subject and encouraging autonomy and self-determination.

Pain and anesthesia could be a concern involving Kantian ethically following doctors. Should a doctor allow a patient to sufferwith out pain medicine if he/she believes they deserve pain? Pain depends on whether it is deserved (according to Kantian ethics), and it is morally right that the wicked should suffer?! I stronglly disagree with Kant here; who is to decide who is truely morally right, wrong, or wicked in society? Should the woman have an epidural for her pain during labor or not? How did she get pregnant, maybe she should not according to Kant?