Case:

Mr. Simpson, an eighty year old man, has "weak" lungs brought on by years of getting the flu with complicating side effects such as bronchitis. His doctors recommend to him that he get a flu shot this year as they fear that another year of the flu will "do him in". He is in otherwise fairly good health, although the weak lungs sometimes bother him. He refuses the flu shot since he believes that, despite what the doctors claim, the flu shot itself is likely to give him the flu. There is absplutely no evidence that the flu shot can give anyone the flu. His family requests that the doctors give him the flu shot anyway and just say they are giving him a shot to "boost his immune system." It is clear that he would accept a shot with a description like that (his family has asked in another setting whether he would accept a shot of this nature). The doctors have tired, but failed to persuade Mr. Simpson to get his flu shot, they believe very strongly that another bout with the flu will likely kill him. He clearly desires to go on living, but adamantly refuses the shot. What should the doctors do?

A) Develop a single moral argument supporting a recommended course of action in this case. Focus very narrowly on one primary area of concern. Possible choices include respect for autonomy, paternalism, beneficence, non-maleficence, informed consent, competence, and truth telling/lying.

B) Defend argument by presenting and responding to the strongest counter argument you can think of.