Extract
[...] The doctor, by protecting his deontological code, must denounce this patient. Indeed, not only because his deontological code imposes it, but also because it is more just for others. In a concern for equality, the athlete must be denounced In this concrete example, the physiotherapist dedicates an important part of his professional life to this athlete. In fact, this athlete has an injury that worsens due to his doping. In the first place, it would be more egalitarian, and more just, for the physiotherapist to dedicate time to all these patients, and not only to his patient with whom he has created a bond. [...]
[...] According to utilitarian logic, the doctor must therefore denounce his patient. Another possible lead: the end of doping If morality is not found on the side of deontology because it is more complex, nor on the side of consequentialism, a solution could be the end of doping in the athlete. The doctor can thus use his link with his patient to make him stop doping. In fact, every man is endowed with free will, and the athlete himself has chosen the path of doping. [...]
[...] As it is universal, what is moral is so for me and in this sense, is so for others. If it is not good for me, then it is not good for others. In other words, there is only one possible moral choice for Kant. And this choice must be rationalized, for example in the form of laws. Let's apply this rule to the concrete case of the physiotherapist and the athlete. The physiotherapist understands, through obvious signs, that his patient is using doping to improve his physical abilities. [...]
[...] Conclusion In the end, ethics involves us in this concrete case to denounce the athlete. In fact, his deontological code obliges him to do so and, in a concern for equality, he must denounce him. After this case study, the path of deontology seems to be ethical and on the side of justice, and consequentialism more on the side of morality, more subjective. A third way is offered to the doctor: that of preventing the athlete from the risks he runs and using his proximity with his patient to stop doping. [...]
[...] The latter was established with the aim of respecting a certain ethics. We can take the example of doctors, who are subject to a deontological code. This can be manifested by the prohibition on revealing the health status of one of their patients, for example. It is therefore a set of laws that protects both the patient and the practitioner. The doctor must apply this text of laws in order to do what is right. Now, to know what is right, he refers to this deontological code. [...]
