With the case to AID, Kant’s theory would oppose this idea because it does not align neatly with every situation within society. Kant’s theory would not want to see death occur regardless of the circumstance because death we all should avoid death as much as possible. That notion would be an absolute at the core of Kant’s theory. Even if this meant to undermine what the patient believed as their best interest. For this reason, Kant’s theory would oppose rights theory in the debate over …show more content…
The role of the nurse is to relieve pain and to establish trust. For Kant, this can only be done through one way. This leaves limitations for situations that are more complex like the issue of AID. On the other hand, rights theory gives nurses the ability to fulfill their role in the medical field by allowing a broader sense of relieving pain and giving comfort. To take this further, the definitions that exist in the objectives are crucial to look at when looking at strengths and weaknesses of each theory. One of which is the definition of doing harm. As stated before, to do harm can mean different things (i.e.-a needle to the arm vs. giving up a life for the sake of not living in misery anymore). How is the medical field to define harm? Also, within what provisions or contextual analysis is there to be for the assistance of complicated situations that patients might be in. Kant’s theory and his categorical imperative do not allow for accommodation for such situations. This is limiting for nurses and doctors to uphold the standards of today’s medical field. Rights theory allows for a free choice to be made (similar to abortion). As Kant’s theory does wish to uphold a standard of society, it does so by infringing another scenario