Our Pampered Pets

How times have changed! When I was growing up, I had several pets: dogs, cats, rabbits, pigeons, and a banty hen and rooster that my grandmother gave me. We never bought anything special for my pets; they lived on table scraps and whatever else we might find. They slept on a bath mat or a throw rug. Neither did they receive veterinary care. I always had the understanding that no matter how much I loved my pets, if they became seriously ill they would be put down. That happened to two dogs I had; and the banty hen and rooster ended up on the kitchen table.

Today, most Americans seem to have an obsessive love for their pets, especially dogs. A simple Milk-Bone doesn’t suffice anymore. Pet owners buy special formula dogfood, and special dog bones to clean the teeth - with some owners going so far as to brush the teeth of their pets. Dental care for dogs is also available for those who can afford it.

Last year, Americans spent over $34 billion on their pets for pet foods, veterinary care, and pet furniture, including the owner who spent $4000 for a dog bed with a matching dresser. Included in that sum, one also might find money spent at dog kennels, dog hospitals, dog resorts and, in the case of another dog owner - a diamond-studded dog collar. Some pet owners even have expensive portraits of their pets painted by an artist. In fact, an artist friend of ours has just finished painting a portrait of a wealthy family’s dog. The dog has cancer and its face is disfigured. The owners requested that the artist paint the muzzle of the dog the way it would have looked before the disfigurement. The artist received a commission running into four figures.

Some dog owners have been reported to have spent up to $30,000 for open-heart surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to battle cancer, medication for diabetes, hip replacement therapy, and even plastic surgery. There are also dog psychiatrists and dog whisperers available for those who can afford the services. Because of all these possible expenses, many pet owners are now taking out pet insurance, at a cost of several hundred dollars per year.

How can one account for today's pet owners having this obsession with their pets? Some studies have concluded that this obsession is caused by young working couples delaying having children while pursuing their careers. Older couples living in an "empty nest" substitute their pets for their grown children who have left home. The pets thus become surrogate children and are treated as such.

In any event, many of today’s pampered pets receive better care than a lot of humans in our population.

Ethical Decisions: What Are Friends For?

Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul.

Did Jim do the right thing? Consider the loyalty he owes to his friend vs. the loyalty he owes to his company. Explain your reasoning in this case.

Making Moral Judgments: The Emergency Contraception Request

Analyzing the Consequences of a Ethical or Moral Decision.

In making an ethical or moral judgment, always assume you have a variety of options. Consider the range of both positive and negative consequences connected with the decision. Ask yourself these questions:

Who will be helped by what you do?
Who will be hurt?
What kinds of benefits and harms are involved? For example, factors such as a person’s health and well-being are more valuable than any other material things that may be gained.
How does the issue affect the long run and the short run?

Mary Joe is an 18-year-old college student at University of New Mexico. She presents a prescription for four Ovral® tablets. The instructions are to take two immediately and two in twelve hours. Ovral® contains ethinyl estradiol and norgestrel and is used as a contraceptive when taken one tablet per day.

When taken in the manner prescribed to Mary Joe it is intended as a morning-after-pill - emergency post-coital contraception, to inhibit or delay ovulation or to prohibit implantation of a fertilized egg within 72 hours of intercourse.

The only pharmacist on duty, Phil, has strong pro-life beliefs. Firm in his beliefs, Phil refuses to dispense the prescription believing that the prescription is being used as an abortifacient. Mary Joe explains that she needs to have the prescription filled soon, because it is very close to 72 hours since intercourse. She begins crying and pleads with Phil to fill the prescriptions and explains that she can not have the prescription filled at another pharmacy because this is the only one that allows her to charge, and her financial aid has not come in yet.

Phil advises Mary Joe that she should seek counseling and shares his religious belief with her. Mary Joe explains that she was walking home three nights before from her volunteer job at the children's hospital when she was attacked and raped. Mary Joe leaves the pharmacy very upset, without the prescription. Later she calls the pharmacy, explains the situation to the pharmacy manager, and demands that Phil be fired.

Does Phil have a right to refuse to dispense the drug?
What duty does Phil have to Mary Joe?
What are the implications to the patient, the employer, co-workers, the profession, and society?
What can be done to minimize the effects of this volatile issue?

As the host of the post, I will not be making comments on this volatile and controversial topic. I am merely providing a forum in which participants may discuss and defend their viewpoints. I do request, however, that those participating in the forum treat those views with which they do not agree with tolerance and equanimity. Please remember that we all arrive at our opinions through our individual backgrounds and life experiences.

Making Moral Choices: Survival of the Fittest

We are confronted almost daily by ethical and moral dilemmas in which we have to make ethical decisions. A three-step process has been developed for solving such problems:

Step One: Analyze the consequences

Who will be helped by what you do?
Who will be harmed?
What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? (Some are more valuable or more harmful than others: good health, someone's trust and a clean environment are very valuable benefits, more so than a faster remote control device.)
How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run?

Use these principles to analyze an ethical dilemma:

The interests of one party over the other (victim, family, employer, profession, community)
Sharing equally
Obligation to one another (duty, custom, legal)
Physical safety

Best interest of person vs. rights of others
Quality of life - Protection of life
Self-determination
Right to autonomy
Right to privacy

Rightness or wrongness of an action
Reputation
Virtues (love, forgiveness, respect, trust)
Conflict avoidance
Greatest good of group

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.

If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

Making Ethical Choices: Finding a Briefcase

(Please refer to Ethical Dilemma #2 for a three-step process in dealing with ethical matters.)

You discover a brief case lying on a street. You open the briefcase and discover that it belongs to Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and the wealthiest man in the world, with a estimated net worth of over $50 billion. It contains $100,000 in $100 bills. That is one thousand Benjamins.

Do you send the money back to Bill Gates? Whether your answer is yes OR no, please describe the ethical reasoning you used to arrive at that decision.