Mary And Abraham Ayala's Moral Dilemma

Wicked Silence is a short documentary that focuses on the 7600 forced sterilizations that occurred in North Carolina even after World War II, making North Carolina among the worst in state sterilization programs. The film began with a forum for victims and their family members, in which the audience is introduced to the concept of feeblemindedness as the criterion that the Eugenics Board of North Carolina used to target victims for these forced and coerced sterilizations. Social workers would target people and form petitions based on this for the “operation of sterilization or asexualization by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina” (Haq, YouTube, Wicked Silence), most often not obtain consent from the patients, and send the cases to Raleigh

Patients on the waiting list are in end-stage organ failure and have been evaluated by a transplant physician at hospitals in the U.S. where organ transplants are performed. Policies that dictate organ allocation are created and revised through a consensus-building process that involves UNOS committees and a board of directors, all composed of transplant physicians, government officials, specialists in immunology and experts in organ donation, as well as donor families, transplant recipients and members of the general public. Specifics of waiting list rules vary by organ.² The time patients spend on the heart transplant waiting list can last anywhere from days to months, and in some cases years, depending on listing status. The availability of a donor with matching blood type and body size also affects the wait time.

An essential part of modern society relied on trust, especially the trust of doctors and scientists. People had the right to make an informed decision about their bodies and body parts. People had a right to their body parts, both attached and cell samples collected by doctors. The actions that the medical professions made will continue to affect future generations in both positive and negative ways. In the contemporary biographical novel, the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot used logical opinions to argue about the importance of consent to reveal the lack of morality from those in the medical field which continues to persist today. Scientists and doctors made great discoveries with the HeLa cells of Henrietta Lacks. The family of Henrietta Lacks had to live with the aftermath of decisions made by doctors and

The study shows that although the majority of participants believed they were given sufficient information before deciding to participate, a large portion was unaware of the withdrawal power. Therefore, the participants were not fully informed. This topic relates to the theme present in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, in which a woman named Henrietta had her cells taken and used in research without her agreement. Although her cells produced extreme profits and ground-breaking research, Henrietta’s family was never compensated. Despite her family’s multiple health issues , they could not even afford health insurance. The study suggests that although it is still flawed to a certain extent, the informed consent process has substantially improved. Only 5.9% of the participants believed that they were not given enough information before deciding to participate. In Henrietta’s time, it was legal for doctors to take her cells and use them for research without her knowledge. Today, consent is required if the donor’s name is attached. However, the process is certainly not perfect. Many patients do not fully understand what exactly it is they’re signing. Nonetheless, physicians must explain to patients to the best of their abilities. Informed consent is a vital process. Although most people are willing to help with research that will positively contribute to the future of medicine, a majority would be appalled to discover

Even today, there are many moral and philosophical issues that divide the United States because they create very polarized opinions and beliefs. One such philosophical issue is the moral permissibility of infanticide. Mary Anne Warren, a philosopher, presents her liberal yet controversial views on the issue of infanticide in the postscript of her article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. However, the anti-infanticide arguments pose problems for Warren’s position because they justify the immorality of infanticide through the physical similarity in resemblance of neonates to human beings. These arguments also claim that the destruction of a viable infant is needless because even if the infant’s biological parents reject the infant, there are many other parents who are willing to adopt and nurture that infant.

Pregnancy, giving birth, and abortion are three interrelated topics. They offer moral dilemmas that aren’t easily solved or tackled. In this paper, I will discuss abortion and I will approach it from the point of view of a consequentialist, a deontological ethicist, and a virtue ethicist. I will start by defining abortion, provide some information about the reasons why women opt to abort a fetus, then give a specific example of a moral dilemma that a woman is facing, and explore the dilemma from the different points of view.

Imagine your child needs a heart transplant. If she gets it in time, she’ll live a long, healthy life. Without it, your child has, at most, one year to live. The article “Why Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help Save Lives, End Violence” published in The Atlantic on November 11, 2011, written by Anthony Gregory, claims that organ sales should be legalized because many people die on the transplant list before they can get an organ. Gregory gives an insight on some of the benefits of organ transplants and how in some countries, it is legal for people to sell their organs. The text is directed toward medical personnel because it causes them to question, “what if”, organ sales legalized or what would they gain from this legalization? His article is also directed towards people in need of an organ, and organ donors. Gregory is successful when he uses logical, emotional and ethical tactics to persuade his audience on why organ sales would be beneficial.

Organ donation definition: it takes healthy organs and tissues from one person(the donor) for transplantation into another(the recipient).

Organ donation is currently the only successful way of saving the lives of patients with organ failure and other diseases that require a new organ altogether. According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services there is currently 122,566 patients both actively and passively on the transplant list. This number will continue to increase, in fact, every ten minutes another person is added to the list. Unfortunately, twenty-two of these people die while waiting for an organ on a daily basis. Each day, about eighty Americans receive a lifesaving organ transplant. We need a way to save these lives, and we have one: Organ donation. When you become an organ donor, you can saves the lives up to eight people. Controversy surrounds this option for many reasons, and some do not find this option to be ethical but most believe it is what God’s calls us to do. The Catholic sees it as love and charity.

Mary Anne Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion concentrates on the question of personhood and humanity with reference to a common anti-abortion argument and the discussion of potential personhood. Her argument builds on the belief that fetuses are not human beings and considers humanity through certain categories one must have in order to be considered a human person. Warren’s argument is logical, however, her argument is unsound because of a series of erroneous premises. Thus, because these premises are erroneous, an Aristotelian-type argument can be constructed that properly discusses potential persons and argues against Warren, thus aruging for the moral impermissibility of abortion.

Today’s ethical case study focuses on Nadya Suleman. Nadya Suleman, also known as “Octomom” became famous after she gave birth to eight healthy babies in January 2009. Nadya became a celebrity overnight because many people believed that she got pregnant naturally. It was until later on the truth came out and Nadya lied. Nadya had in vitro fertilization (IVF) done and when the general public found out they turned on her immediately. An investigation took place, led by the Medical Board of California, on the doctors who saw Nadya during her pregnancy. It turns out that Nadya created all of her fourteen children with in vitro fertilization while she was unemployed.

We were all once enchanting children, as all babies are. Today, we become abortionists, killers of babies. Do we not regret our wicked deeds? We would greatly regret it since the abortion mentality destroys the family by making it more difficult for new babies who survive beyond the womb to find the family welded together by the bond, which is impossible to break, of marriage solely between a man and woman. Children need families who would nurture them, guard their innocence and develop their personalities. In particular, all of us must find within our homes the faith that would enable us to know how to love and accept all that is happening around. Since I am through with defending the life of babies inside the womb, we may move closer towards a world in which forty million fetuses are not aborted every year but rather are given the chance to enjoy life beyond the

Living donor autonomy is a vital component of informed consent. Arguing that inmates are a vulnerable population who do not possess the capacity to give informed consent stigmatizes an entire group of individuals. By making broad assumptions, we are not respecting the autonomy of these inmates to make informed decisions. Concurrently, enabling living donor autonomy ensures that vulnerable populations such as Aboriginals and new immigrants are able to donate organs free of harsh restrictions. These populations can face similar barriers as inmates such as language, comprehension, and educational barriers. The current process of informed consent among living donors is done with multiple safeguards in place in order to assess

The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.

One of the furthermost essential issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy around abortion. There’s a long history on this controversy and it is still critically debated among researchers and the public in both terms of morality and legality. Some of the basic questions argued that may perhaps characterize the importance of the issue: Is abortion morally justifiable? Does the foetus/embryo/zygote have any moral and legal rights? Is the foetus a human being and, if so, should it be protected? What are the measures for being a human being? Is there any morally relevant break along the biological process of development from the unicellular zygote to birth? In this essay I will discuss why physician should recommend prenatal testing for severe birth defect even if it might encourages abortion therefore I do not agree with the statement above. My argument will based on the following ethical principles and theories: Utilitarianism, Respect for Autonomy and Virtue