The Ethics Committee and the Mandatory Volunteer Scheme
A regional hospital's ethics committee must rule on a proposal: all nursing students on placement must complete 40 hours of unpaid 'wellness visiting' at aged-care facilities, or their clinical placement is marked incomplete. The committee chair argues this is justified because (a) the facilities are understaffed and residents benefit, (b) students gain empathy, and (c) the students consented by enrolling in the course. A student representative objects that consent given under threat of failing a required placement is not genuine consent, and that the scheme shifts a public funding obligation onto trainees. The committee has 9 members: 4 clinical staff, 3 administrators, 1 philosopher, 1 student. A two-thirds majority is required to approve. The philosopher must write a short recommendation that will be read aloud before the vote.
1. Using Kant's distinction between acting from duty and acting in accordance with duty, assess whether the chair's justification (a) can support the proposal.
Read the worked answer
The chair's first reason is consequentialist in form: residents benefit, so the scheme is good. Kant's distinction asks not merely whether the action produces good outcomes but whether the maxim of the action can be willed as universal law and whether the agent acts from duty.
Apply the formula of universal law to the chair's maxim: 'When public services are underfunded, I will compel trainees to supply unpaid labour to fill the gap.' Universalised, every underfunded service could conscript trainees. The practice of voluntary placement would be undermined, because 'volunteer' would no longer mark a choice. The maxim cannot be consistently universalised without destroying the very institution it depends on.
The formula of humanity is more decisive here. Compelling students under threat of failing a required placement treats them as means only - instruments for staffing - rather than as ends capable of setting their own purposes. Benefit to residents is real, but Kant does not permit using persons merely as means even for good ends. So the chair's reason (a) can show the scheme is in accordance with a good purpose, but it cannot show the students act from duty; the motive is coercion, not respect for the moral law. The recommendation should reject (a) as insufficient.
2. The chair claims the students 'consented by enrolling'. Evaluate this consent claim using the philosopher's likely reasoning, and state what the two-thirds vote arithmetic implies for the outcome.
Read the worked answer
The consent claim fails on the philosopher's likely analysis. Consent requires (i) relevant information, (ii) voluntariness, and (iii) capacity. Information: students enrolling did not know the 40-hour requirement existed, so condition (i) is unmet. Voluntariness: refusal carries the penalty of an incomplete placement, which is a serious cost to a student's degree; a choice made under a threatened significant penalty is not voluntary in the relevant sense. Capacity is not in dispute.
A utilitarian might reply that aggregate welfare favours the scheme. But the philosopher can note that the scheme's benefits are diffuse (residents) while its burdens are concentrated and non-consensual (students). Rule-utilitarian reasoning also cautions against a rule permitting institutions to convert unmet funding obligations into compulsory trainee labour, because the precedent invites escalation.
On the arithmetic: 9 members, two-thirds majority needed to approve. Two-thirds of 9 is 6. So 6 votes are required. The philosopher's recommendation is one vote; even with the student representative, that is at most 2 against approval, so approval is arithmetically possible. The recommendation's real function is to shift the four clinical and three administrative votes, not to block by numbers alone.
3. Distinguish the descriptive claim 'students consented' from the normative claim 'students ought to be bound by that consent', and explain why the committee cannot settle the dispute by pointing to enrolment records.
Read the worked answer
The descriptive claim reports a fact: students signed enrolment forms. The normative claim asserts an obligation: because they signed, they are bound to the 40 hours. The inference from fact to obligation is not automatic - it requires a bridge principle such as 'persons are bound by all commitments made in a contract, whatever its terms'.
Enrolment records establish only the descriptive fact. They cannot establish voluntariness or information, and those are precisely what the student representative disputes. A signature obtained without disclosure of a material term, and under penalty for refusal, is weak evidence of genuine agreement.
The committee therefore cannot resolve the matter by producing records. It must evaluate the bridge principle. If the principle is unrestricted, it would also bind students to any term added later, which is implausible. If restricted to fair terms reasonably disclosed, the scheme fails the restriction. The philosopher's recommendation should state that the records are relevant evidence but not dispositive, and that the burden of proof lies with those proposing compulsion.