Vicarious Liability Module 3 ( SLP) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Vicarious Liability Module 3 ( SLP) - Essay Example The acts posed health risks to the patients and also resulted to psychological harm. There was sufficient evidence in the case of Robert Ray Courtney. The pharmacist was involved in the act of diluting chemotherapy drugs before prescribing them the patients diagnosed of cancer (Anselmi, 2012). The scheme was discovered through the assistance of a doctor who bought the drugs from Robert Ray Courtney and became suspicious that the pharmacist was selling more drugs than the amount he purchased. The doctor later took the drugs he obtained from Robert Ray Courtney to a lab for analysis. The analysis revealed that the dose of Taxol contained a 32% of the total amount of Taxol it was supposed to contain. The doctor then took the courtesy of informing the FBI and also FDA of the situation. The government agents proceeded to test several samples of Taxol and also Gemzar retrieved from Robert Ray Courtney. The doses were meant for cancer patients and the federal agents found out that the drugs contained between 17% and 50% of the chemotherapy constituents they were supposed to have. As the investigations proceeded the government agents asked the doctor to buy other doses of Zofran, Taxol, Gemzar, Platinol and Paraplantin from Robert Ray Courtney and use fake patient identity. The drugs were analyzed in the lab and the results revealed that they contained a maximum of 65% of the constituents they were supposed to contain (DeKaye and Naclerio, 2012). The government agents performed a search in the Courtneys pharmacy which resulted into his arrest. In the court hearings, Robert Ray Courtney pleaded guilty to the offense of tampering with products which resulted to bodily injury and also the offense of misbranding or adulterating drugs. Other parties that were also held responsible for the act were Eli Lilly & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co (Giliker, 2011) who were the manufacturers of the drug. The documents retrieved from the companies

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics - Essay Example Examples of such emotions can be lust, greed, anger, jealousy, hatred, joy, and-in some cases- even love. However a â€Å"continent† person is able to resist the pressure of such emotions. He is able to dutifully abide by the path that reason prescribes, even if in reality he has no desire for doing so. This dutiful adherence to goodness is not just applicable to cases where the ‘good’ course of action has been determined by a person’s own intellectual and rational faculties. It can also apply to cases where ‘good’ has been determined and prescribed by society. Dutiful, albeit passive and thoughtless, adherence to ethical norms can also be called â€Å"continence†. An â€Å"incontinent† person (the Greek word is akratà ªs), on the other hand, is one who succumbs to the pressures of his desires and emotions and violates what in his own opinion is the demand of reason. The incontinent person lacks mastery of feelings. However, Aristotle maintained that â€Å"incontinence† is quite distinct from â€Å"evil†. The â€Å"evil† are those who believe that virtues (such as justice, temperance and truthfulness) are useless, and are not to be pursued at all. While the â€Å"incontinent† person fails to pursue ‘good’ out of a ‘weakness of will’, the evil do not even attempt to be virtuous. In other words the evil do not reach the conclusion that the virtuous course of action is rational; which seems, more or less, like a defect in their intelligence, or their rational faculties. He refers to the evil as kakos or as phaulos. It is important to note that even though the â€Å"incontinent† a re removed from acting in a virtuous manner, they do acknowledge a duty of doing so. Hence, according to Aristotle, their situation is not hopeless (incontinence isn’t vicious). Here one might raise the concern that if the â€Å"incontinent† succumb to the inexorable counter-pressure of their desires and their emotions; then their actions are involuntary. And since, as the well known dictum suggests, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, we can safely assume that the â€Å"incontinent† aren’t morally responsible for their seemingly reprehensible actions. However, Aristotle’s notion of â€Å"voluntary† (Book 3, Chapter 1) is entirely negative. An action is voluntary in two conditions. The first condition is the absence of any sort of ‘compulsion’ toward the performance of the action, and the second condition is the absence of ‘ignorance’ about the harmful consequences of the action. Note that ‘compul sion’ in used here only in the sense of being compelled by an external force (a force that lies outside the agent). And since desires and emotions lie within a person, therefore when an â€Å"incontinent† person succumbs to the pressure of his desires he can not be said to be acting involuntarily. It is clear that a person will act in ways that are ‘good’ if he is â€Å"continent†, and resists the irrational appetites that haunt him. However, according to Aristotle, the life of such a person is not virtuous. Aristotle believes that true ‘virtue’ and goodness are quite distinct from both continence and incontinence. In fact, Aristotle regards ‘continence’, ‘incontinence’ and ‘