The theory that best describes the case: Back From the Dead is ethics. This theory of ethics is “the study of duty”. The theory of deontology states that the situation in which one may find oneself does not matter for the use of reasoning. Ethics deals with the imperatives of command. It's using the word that should make a claim. Ethics concerns a person's duty as a professional to fulfill their obligations to their clients and to themselves. The case that poses a moral dilemma is: Back from the Dead. This case concerns Dr. Cee, a veterinarian with a well-established practice in a small town. Her client, Ms Kay, has a dog named Sandy who was diagnosed with a rare blood disease. The veterinarian only knew of one experimental treatment for the disease, but it was expensive, time-consuming and very uncomfortable for the dog. It was also found to be 95 percent ineffective in laboratory tests. The client decided not to treat the dog and put it to sleep because she did not want the dog to suffer any longer. The moral dilemma arises because the doctor went ahead and began treating the dog because he felt that most of the researchers had made crucial errors and that he might be able to treat the dog effectively. He did not tell Ms. Kay about the experimental treatment because she was worried about the dog's discomfort. The dog was symptom free within a month and he returned it to Ms. Kay without charging her for the treatment despite the thousands of dollars it cost to treat the dog. There are many different ways to look at this case. For Dr. Cee, he has a moral obligation to fulfill his job of respecting the client's wishes. The client didn't want him to follow the procedure...... middle of paper...... not really good ways to make a moral decision. Virtue Ethics deals with the process that will make the client happy. The client clearly wanted the dog not to suffer, but the veterinarian went against her wishes. Utilitarianism deals with the act of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The veterinarian clearly went against the client's wishes and caused the dog to suffer without knowing the outcome. Each of these ways of resolving the moral dilemma does not have enough evidence to prove that they are better ways of resolving the moral dilemma than using deontology. In conclusion, the way the vet handled the moral dilemma was probably not the best way to handle the situation. . Although the dog survived, he clearly went against his client's wishes. In the professional world, there are ethical rules to respect and he has not chosen the right way to manage the moral dilemma..