1.

In the scenario where the scientist goes through with his gut feeling, and prescribes the medicine, there are three possible outcomes. A. The medicine is successful, and the doctor must admit to blindly testing on humans in order to provide clinical proof of the medicines healing capabilities. B. The medicine is successful and he keeps his experiment to himself, in which case his colleagues and the hospital will grow suspicious of how he was able to heal 15 terminally ill patients. An investigation would ensue, and the doctors malpractice would inevitably be discovered. C. The medicine fails and the patients die anyways 2. In each of these scenarios, you have an ethical obligation to vote con to maximize utility. Well isolate two reasons. A. We have established that in the case of the doctors success, his human testing will inevitably come to light. The doctor will be turned in, his license will be revoked, and most importantly, his reputation will fall into disrepair. No longer credible, the doctors research, no matter how successful, will be rejected and eventually forgotten. This pattern is empirically proven. During World War Two, the Nazis were at the forefront in many fields of scientific research, particularly in the effects of phosgene gas on humans. In 1988, Nazi phosgene data had the potential to save the lives of our American Troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, in the event of a chemical attack by Sadam Hussein. People's lives were severely threatened. However, because of the human testing that went into obtaining the Nazi data, the director of the EPA refused to use any of the Nazis findings. Our doctor will more than likely find himself in the same situation. Therefore, it is actually better for him to let the 15 patients die and complete his research which could go on to save 15,000 lives, rather than save those fifteen people and forsake the potential lives he could save. B. If the scientist gives the medicine and it fails, he has again created the highly probable risk of being found out, which would eliminate any chance of going back and fixing the medicine, not giving the medicine actually has a greater utility potential and becomes preferable option. 3. Because we cannot predict the future, prefer the side that provides the most probable impact scenarios. The scientist is acting on a gut feeling making success unlikely, default con on our greater probability of a net loss in utility.

Bibliography Cohen, Baruch C.. "The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments." Jewish Virtual Library - Homepage. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html#1 (accessed October 25, 2011).