The model of the `perverse effects`
When are implemented, the rules, judgments and policies acquire a life of their own. They not only solve present dilemmas, but also influence later behavior. That is, when a particular ethical or legal policy is used to correct an existing situation, it can have undesirable effects that bring new injustices into new situations. In other words, rules and judgments can create counterproductive incentives, which that undermine either the moral principle on which adopted policy is based, or another important moral principle. This kind of unintended consequence of a policy, makes it less desirable as an option. That's why it's important to formulate rules and judgments in a way that avoids perverse effects.
Avoiding …show more content…
I mean, a rule or a judgment not only solves an existing dilemma, but also influences the future behavior of the people. The utilitarian analysis is best in assessing all the consequences of moral and legal decisions, desirable or not, and thus leads to the identification of perverse effects. In practice, one of the best ways to avoid perverse effects is to keep confidentiality. For example, if a patient needs a kidney transplant, family members are advised to donate a kidney because there is a high chance of compatibility. Lets assuming that following immunological compatibility tests, a member of the patient's family is identified as a possible compatible donor. What do you do if the person does not want to donate his kidney? In this case, the doctor tells the patient and the rest of the family that the person is not medically compatible. Disclosing the fact that it is actually compatible but refuses to donate, would subject the person to coercive pressures on the part of the family to donate against his or her own will, or bring him or her to the point of no longer being accepted by his family. Also in public health issues, keeping confidentiality protects against perverse effects. At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, many …show more content…
I refer here only to the case of the pregnant woman who has to follow a treatment to save the fetus. Lets suppose a pregnant woman has an important haemorrhage, and for the rescue of the fetus she must make a mandatory transfusion. If the woman is part of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, she will consider transfusion unacceptable. If transfusion is required by a law, or a therapeutic protocol, in the interest of saving the life or health of the fetus, the woman will be tempted to avoid prenatal care altogether. For the fear of an imposed but unlikely treatment, she will not offer the fetus the most elementary care. By rejecting all the prenatal care for fear of some prenatal care, her fetus will evolve worse than in a regimen where treatment is not imposed against the mother's desire. Many fetuses would suffer from the lack of prenatal care, of which the woman would benefit from if she would not avoid the doctor's office. Jehova's witnesses accept the other medical treatments, but not the transfusion. Likewise, if a woman refuses to give birth by cesarean for various non-medical reasons, she will accept however other recommendations from obstetrician. If these women decide to refrain from any treatment to avoid that treatment they reject, their fetuses will be negatively affected by the very regulation that was intended to do them well. In addition, a lot