Case 5 Ethics - Working Conditions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Case 5 Ethics - Working Conditions - Essay Example Jameson (2010, February 1) disagreed with this article in â€Å"Fed Up with Fat.† He asserted that fat people should be penalized for not actively addressing health issues, in the same way that smokers are paying more for their insurance because of their bad habit. This paper asks: Should an overweight employee who chooses not to participate in a wellness program be penalized? Using deontology and utilitarianism, it stresses that when a personal problem has widespread negative social consequences, then that person should be penalized for not participating in wellness programs, if healthcare assistance is free and other support systems are present. Deontology focuses on respecting people as ends, not as means to ends, and people have autonomy over their bodies, which society should not violate. Deontological thinking does not support stigmatizing people, especially because of physical differences (Morrison, 2009, p.403). Jameson (2010) talked about weight discrimination, which is immoral, because a person should be hired based on merit and other objective qualifications, not because of their weight. Tsai and Bessesen (2012) pointed out that many normal-weight people are actually unhealthy, such as smokers and those who are fond of eating fried, sweet, and salty foods, and yet are not gaining extra weight. They stressed that other fat people, on the contrary, are eating or living healthy, but they continue to have weight issues. This comparison highlights the injustice of being stigmatized because of being overweight. Furthermore, it is wrong to penalize people just because they are overweight, specifically people who are genetically predisposed to be overweight. Tsai and Bessesen (2012) mentioned that genetic studies prove that obesity has genetic causes, which is why some people get fat easily and have an unusually hard time losing weight. Some of them might even have illnesses that store fats in their bodies. Tsai and Bessesen (2012) stressed that socie ty will only be doing more harm than good, if it penalizes people who hardly have control over genetic predispositions. In addition, fat people are ends in themselves. They have autonomy, and they cannot be forced to apply in wellness programs, if they lack time and resources (Morrison, 2009, p.403). They might also have other issues, such as childcare, whereas if they spend time in these wellness programs, they have no money or no one to take care of their children. If these people are penalized despite these conditions, they are being seen as means to ends. The ends served are those of society, or the â€Å"thin† strata, who do not strive to understand the genetic, economic, and social conditions and limitations of the overweight. Fat people are people-as-ends too, and their autonomy over matters that concern their private bodies must be protected. Deontology further argues that the healthcare sector has a primary duty to do no harm to the obese. Healthcare professionals ha ve a duty to help the obese be aware of their options, in order for them to have a normal weight (Morrison, 2009, p.403). They must discuss prevention, not only cure, and suggest the best treatments and interventions to help the overweight deal with their weight problems (Morrison, 2009, p.403). The principle of beneficence is important. They must do no harm to the obese, and they can attain this if they provide the resources needed to help them (Morrison, 2009,