1. What is the most difficult ethical situation
that you have encountered professionally and
how did you handle it?
Answer:
Examples of ethical situation might be these:
I saw my manager steal money from the cash register. I didn't want to lose my job but the
company was being harmed. I called my District Manager and reported it.
My friend and I worked in the same doctor's office. A patient asked if the doctor was
running on time. Later my friend told the doctor the patient had been "irate and rude".
The doctor said to send the patient a termination letter and he refused to see her anymore.
I stepped in to tell the truth about the patient, who had not been rude or irate. I lost my
friend because of my decision.
I overheard my co-worker lie to a customer about the costs of different service plans. I
told my manager because that behavior eventually harms the company and customers.
I saw my co-worker "slap" an older patient's hand. My co-worker was irritable because
her baby was sick all night. But slapping a patient is abuse, even though the slap left no
mark on the skin.
My nurse mentor ran an IV at a higher rate to "catch up" because the IV rate "got
behind". Later she put it back to the rate that the doctor had ordered. I reported it because
she didn't follow doctor's orders, and the patient could have been harmed.
Two girls at a fast food store routinely go outside to smoke marijuana on their breaks.
Then, they confuse orders, forget things, and get rude to customers. I really wanted to fit
in at work, but what they were doing was wrong and affected job performance.
Life and Death Ethical Issues
By Wayne Jackson
Solomon once observed that there is ―a time to be born, and a time to die‖ (Eccl. 3:2). Dying,
which ultimately is the price tag attached to human rebellion (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12), is man’s
final earthly experience. It shuts the door to this-world activity (Eccl. 9:6; Heb. 9:27) — the
views of many fanciful speculators to the contrary notwithstanding — and opens vistas into
eternity.
By virtue of humanity’s accelerated technological advances, the modern mind is challenged with
numerous questions that pertain to the dying phenomenon. We have gathered several of these
inquiries that have been posed to us in recent times, and, in this article, explore them for study
and reflection.
Pain Relief

2. “Is it ethical to provide morphine to a terminally ill patient, when it is a known fact that
this drug can hasten death. Is not this a form of euthanasia?”
This is a most interesting question, and one that many of us have had to deal with on occasion as
loved ones faced death. The morphine remedy is, in a manner of speaking, a ―double-edged
sword.‖
The design of the medication is to provide the cancer victim, for instance, with some relief from
pain in the agonizing final phases of terminal illness. In the cases with which I’ve been
acquainted, there is no hope of recovery. While it is true that the morphine does tend to restrict
certain bodily functions, as a by-product of the relief of suffering, it is not the intent of the
administering physician, and the family, to terminate the life of the patient.
In the judgment of most morally sensitive people, it is much better to provide some easement
from the torturous pain — even if life is abbreviated slightly — than it is to allow the victim to
languish in agony as the inevitable approaches. This may not be the most ideal situation
imaginable, but until something better is developed, most caring people see no ethical problem in
the humane relief of suffering.
There are numerous medical techniques that are risky. Nonetheless, in many cases the
physicians, in concert with the patient and his or her family, will opt for a procedure, knowing
full well that such could result in death. At times, we struggle in knowing precisely what to do in
attempting to save life or to provide comfort. We try to do the very best that we can for the
patient.
There is a distinct difference, though, in attempting to save life, or to provide easement from
pain, and in a deliberate intention to terminate a person’s life. The latter is not an ethical option.
Prolongation of Terminal Illness
“Is the Christian morally obligated to prolong his life by the use of artificial techniques?
May he refuse chemotherapy, knowing that such would only add a few months to his life
(and that with considerable suffering)? Is it wrong to refuse permission to be connected to
a machine that can sustain biological functions, when one knows that death will result
otherwise?”
Life and death issues entail some of the most difficult decisions one will ever be called upon to
make. The Bible does not provide us with explicit answers to the complex medical questions
with which we are confronted in today’s technological world. The Scriptures, however, are
perpetually relevant, and they do contain principles that will enable the devout person to make
reasonably confident decisions in many of these areas of ethical concern. Let us consider the
following.
1. The Christian must acknowledge that human life is a gift from God (Acts 17:25; 1 Tim.
6:13). No person, therefore, has the arbitrary right to destroy that life — either by
homicide or suicide. And this includes what has come to be called ―euthanasia‖ (a term

3. meaning ―good death‖). Mercy-killing is morally wrong. It is an infringement into divine
territory.
2. It is a grim reality, taught both by experience and the Bible, that death is the inevitable
destiny of all human beings (with the exception of those who will be alive at the time of
Christ’s return — 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thes. 4:15). As a consequence of human rebellion,
death has passed to all people (Rom. 5:12), and so it is ―appointed‖ to man to die
eventually (Heb. 9:27). One may, with good health habits and sound medical procedure,
delay the ―grim reaper‖ for a brief while, but the fact is, all of us are terminal!
What, then, is one to do if he is informed that he has terminal cancer? Suppose your physician
tells you: ―With chemotherapy you may be able to live a year; without it, you will likely have
only two to three months.‖ Is the Christian morally obligated to subject himself to additional
months of inch-by-inch wasting away?
Some may decide to take the treatment (hope springs eternal), feeling that such will provide them
with the opportunity to continue doing good works, even under dire circumstances. Perhaps, they
envision, a dramatic cure will be discovered. One certainly could not argue against that choice,
should a person elect to make it.
On the other hand, it would be extremely presumptuous to contend that this prolonged agony was
divinely required. Could one be morally faulted for not wanting to retard his journey to heaven?
Here is the point: There is a marked difference in deliberately terminating one’s life, and letting
natural processes take their providentially permitted course. Allowing death is not the equivalent
of producing death.
And what about the accident victim who is ―brain-dead,‖ but whose biological functions still are
maintained by sophisticated machinery? Must a Christian family prolong the physiological
processes of a loved one who is in a state of suspended animation — and that for years? There is
nothing in the Scriptures that would mandate this.
Where is our hope ultimately focused? There is something to be said for ―quality of life‖ (though
this expression is abused frequently by modern advocates of euthanasia). Sometimes the very
best thing that one can do for a Christian loved one is to let him go on home to be with the Lord
(2 Cor. 5:8).
The Right to Terminal Information
“A loved one has undergone exploratory surgery. In the process it has been discovered that
he is consumed with cancer, and he has only a short time to live — under the most ideal
circumstances. Should he or she be told of his or her condition, or may we simply let our
beloved die in peace without added anxiety over his or her impending fate?”
If one may say so delicately, what the question contemplates (providing the patient still has
cognition) is whether or not it is acceptable to deceive the person about his or her eminent
condition. In other words, is it ethical to ―lie‖ under certain circumstances? The rational patient
is bound to ask about his status.

4. First, it must be noted that death is the most serious event that a human being will experience —
ever! Death is not the cessation of human existence. It is a transition from the environment of
this earth to a region that accommodates a purely ―spirit‖ existence.
The New Testament uses the term ―Hades‖ to depict the post-death, pre-resurrection state of both
the wicked and the righteous (cf. Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:27). Some derive the word ―Hades‖ from the
Greek roots a (not), and eido (seen), hence, the ―not seen‖ state. Others feels that the etymology
most likely is from hado, signifying ―all receiving‖ (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words).
One thing is clear to the careful Bible student. Death does not introduce a person into a state of
―nothingness;‖ rather, it is a realm of ―somethingness‖ — and the quality of that
―somethingness‖ is determined by how the individual has responded to the will of his Creator.
One cannot live wrong and die right (cf. Mt. 25:1-13; Heb. 9:27; 1 Pet. 4:17-18). In view of this,
the following observations are in order.
1. The lucid person has the right to know that he or she is dying. There may be physical and
material decisions (e.g., as the disposition of property, etc.) that need to be made. And the
dying person should have an opportunity to make such arrangements.
More importantly, there may be spiritual decisions — with eternal consequences — that
need to be confronted. One must remember that Christ taught that even ―eleventh hour‖
decisions can be crucial (Mt. 20:1-16). It is never too late to surrender to God as long as
one retains his ability to make responsible choices. And no person should be deprived of
that opportunity.
2. Facing death provides one with the opportunity of exhibiting some of the best qualities of
which the human being is capable. We may grossly underestimate a person when we
assume that an awareness of his approaching death will bring only terror.
In her book, titled, On Death and Dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, who studied the
matter with considerable detail, set forth five mental stages through which she perceived
that most people pass in facing the certainty of approaching death.
First, there is denial and possible isolation — with silence and self contemplation.
Second, an anger phase may set in — ―Why me?‖ Third, there may be a period during
which one tends to bargain, i.e., he may (in desperation) promise God, ―If you will only
let me live, I will ….‖ Fourth, there can be a phase of depression when the reality sets in
that all future plans will never materialize.
Finally, though, if there is enough time, the dying person frequently arrives at a tranquil
state that may be characterized as ―quiet expectation‖ — especially if he or she is a
person of faith, having committed his or her life to the care and keeping of the loving
Savior. Many examples of the most radiant faith, in the face of death’s blast, could be
cited.
3. The situation of impending death does not justify lying. The fa•ade rarely deceives the
ailing person, and it cheapens the character of the ―miserable comforter‖ (cf. Job 16:2). It

5. is far better to allow the patient his liberty of making choices, and face the reality of his
mortality with dignity, than to follow the crooked road of duplicity. The dying deserve
honesty from those who love them most.
Organ Donation
“Is it ethical for a Christian to donate one of his body organs (e.g., a kidney) to help save
the life of another, even though it might endanger his own life?”
While there is a risk in any significant surgical endeavor, such procedures as kidney and lung
transplants are rather common these days, and have been implemented thousands of times quite
successfully. I know of no Bible principle that would be violated by the benevolent act of
donating a kidney to help save the life of another.
The fact is, it frequently is the case that one diminishes his own life in the interest of others. A
mother or father may work herself or himself into an earlier grave in the interest of their children.
A fireman may rush into a burning building to save a helpless victim. A hero may dart into the
path of a car to save a straying toddler. There are many examples of such nobility. Paul
commended the saints in Galatia by suggesting that while he was with them initially, had it been
possible, they would have plucked out their eyes and donated them to him (Gal. 4:15).
Christ once said: ―Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends‖
(Jn. 15:13). Contemplate, then, the love of Jesus, who gave his life for us while we were yet
sinners (Rom. 5:8). There are causes nobler than that of the mere preservation of one’s life.
Many of the early Christians were willing to forfeit their lives rather than withhold the saving
gospel from those who are lost. The Lord admonished, ―Be faithful unto death [i.e., even if it
causes your death], and I will give you the crown of life‖ (Rev. 2:10).
But there are two points that must be made before departing from this inquiry.
1. The sacrificial surrender of one’s life on behalf of another must never be equated with
suicide, which, in the case of a rational person (although some suicides clearly are
irrational acts — for which the unfortunate victim is not culpable) is a supreme act of
selfishness.
One does not have the right to arbitrarily take his own life. Self-murder is not a
responsible, benevolent attempt to sacrifice for others; rather, it is a self-willed attempt to
escape responsibility. Every suicide recorded in the Scriptures is presented in a negative
light.
2. While the surrender of one’s life on behalf of another may be a courageous and loving
act, there is no redemptive value in such an act alone. There is no biblical evidence that a
―good work,‖ even of that magnitude, is a substitute for obedience to the Lord (Jn. 3:36,
ASV; Heb. 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:17). In the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, 2001,
during which many brave souls lost their lives attempting to rescue others, society, with a
casual wave of the hand, assigned the heroes an eternal abode in heaven. While such an
emotional response may be understandable to a degree, it is without validity.

6. Finally, we must note that there is nothing unethical in one’s decision that, upon his death, his
useful organs be removed from his body, so that such might be made available to those who
could benefit therefrom (e.g., kidneys, hearts, eye cornea, etc.).
Post-mortem Organ Removal
“Suppose a person decides to donate certain body organs to others following his death.
How does a doctor know when a patient is actually dead? Could not a physician act
prematurely, removing a vital organ, when the patient only appears to be dead? As I
understand it, these procedures must be enacted quickly before the organs deteriorate.”
There are strict procedures employed in determining when death actually has occurred. There is
not a mere single criterion by which to measure this terminal event; rather, a combination of
factors is employed in making such decisions. These are: respiration, pulse, nerve response,
electrical activity in the brain (flat EEG – electroencephalograph), etc. It is an extremely rare
event when a ―death‖ is misdiagnosed, and even then, there is most probably carelessness
involved.
Finally, it would never be permissible to arbitrarily and forcefully remove an organ from a
patient who is close to death, in order to provide a benefit for someone else who is critically ill.
That would be nothing short of murder. And yet such proposals are being suggested increasingly
by some in the medical world, particularly with reference to the elderly, who, presumably, have
nothing of further value to contribute to society. Organ donations are a matter of one’s personal
choice. No one has a right to override the patient’s will. Yet, we may live to see horrors
unspeakable become commonplace in such matters!
Conclusion
Again we must emphasize that one must look to the Author of life for answers pertaining to
critical life and death decisions. As we stated earlier, many of these issues are not spelled out
explicitly in the Scriptures. However, there are principles in the Sacred Book that guide us in
making these crucial judgments. For further information, one may wish to consult our book,
Biblical Ethics & Modern Science.
conducting Personal Business on Company Time
Because employees tend to spend so much of their weekday hours on the job, they often are
tempted to conduct personal business on company time. This can include setting up doctor's
appointments on company phone lines, making vacation reservations using their employer's
computers and Internet connections or even making phone calls for a freelance side business
while on company time. At first glance, this ethical dilemma is fairly clear: It is an abuse of your
employer to conduct personal business on company time. But there are shades of gray here.
What if your spouse calls to tell you that your children are ill? Is it OK for you to schedule a
doctor's appointment? A good rule of thumb is for an employee to check with his manager or
human resources supervisors to clarify what counts as an actionable offense in the company.

7. Taking Credit for Others' Work
Employees often work in teams to create marketing campaigns, develop new products or fine-
tune services, yet rarely does everyone in a group contribute equally to the final product. If three
members of a five-person team did all the work, do those three members demand to receive
proper credit while pointing out that two members of the team did not pull their weight? This is a
thorny question. If employees single out their co-workers in a negative light, it could foment
resentment. The same thing could happen, however, if all employees accept equal praise even
though only a select few did the real work. The best way to resolve this ethical dilemma is to not
let it happen. Team members should insist that all employees perform specific tasks to help
complete a project.
Harassing Behavior
Employees often don't know what to do if they see one of their co-workers harassing another
employee, either mentally, sexually or physically. Employees may worry for their jobs if they
attempt to report a superior for harassment. They may fret that they'll be labeled a troublemaker
if they report co-workers who display inappropriate behavior toward other employees. The best
way to resolve this ethical dilemma rests with the staff members who develop the company's
employee handbook. It is their job to include specific language that spells out that employees
won't be punished for reporting the harassing behavior or inappropriate actions of their co-
workers.