Respecting autonomy means respecting the individuals capacity to make decisions consistent with the patient’s own personal desires or life plans. The British Medical Association (2007) states that these are decisions with which others may not agree with. If a patient is requesting or seeking support in carrying out assisted suicide it poses a challenge for the nurse to seek the underlying reasons for the request. Likewise, Carr and Mohr (2008) concurs with the British Medical Association (2007) and also expresses concern with regard to patients having powerful feelings of depression or isolation, pain or suffering or feel a sense of burden on their families. Better symptom management and palliative care, appropriate referrals to counsellors and hospices and increased knowledge about the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment even if the refusal will hasten death may provide satisfactory alternative to assisted suicide.
In case of elective surgery, the patients are being informed about risk and benefit of the blood transfusion as well as the consequences of the refusal of the transfusion. Usually, Jehovah’s Witness patients have to sign a consent form which excludes the blood transfusion. In case of emergency, the doctors try to save the life. When they learn about the patient is a member of the Jehovah’s Witness, then it becomes a very challenging situation for them. They have to balance between the respect for the patient’s belief and their own commitment to promote and protect a patient’s life.
He says, “The Sunflower story brings up the question of whether Simon had the right to forgive Karl in the name of all Jews. The question appears to me as irrelevant. Karl did not ask him to speak in the name of all Jews, or for that matter, for the harm done to all Jews but only for what he had done” (137). Flannery thinks Wiesenthal made the wrong decision, and later on said that if he were in the position that Wiesenthal was in, he would’ve forgiven the Karl. I, however, disagree with Flannery because I don’t think that the war crimes that Nazis have committed are something that can be
Question 3: Will your dataset help address or explain the main frustrations with the health care system in treating DHOH people with CVD-related diseases? • A comparison of these qualitative questions with the quantitative question(s) you selected for your
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Historical revisionists only look at the evidence that supports their claims, while ignoring the whole of the evidence that could possibly discredit their beliefs. I am going to restrict my research to a few basic claims and try to identify how each claim is based on belief or feelings rather than scientific evidence. First the claim that the number of bodies cremated was not mathematically possible at the killing centers, and concentration camps. However, like all great systematic endeavors, they usually have small beginnings that lead to ambitious feats. The Nazi efforts did not begin with the mass genocide of Jews, that was just their end game.
Jewish resistance during the occupation of the Nazis varied significantly among different members of the Jewish community. It is therefore inaccurate to simplify Jewish actions or inactions during this time by placing Jews into one category. It is important to take into account those who put up an armed resistance against Nazi power, even if this was the minority. Additionally, the efforts made to hide Jews who were at risk showed that some were willing to resist despite the consequences. Indirect resistance involved the continued educational opportunities for the Jewish community and the practising of religion, despite the restrictions placed on undertaking these activities.
It is also used to describe nonutilitarian theories of punishment based on justice and desert. In its third sense, the term retribution describes punishment that serves a utilitarian purpose: to vent public disgust toward criminals and, as a consequence, to increase respect for the law and eliminate the likelihood that citizens will "take the law into their own hands." Whatever meaning is attached to retribution, the paradigm does not become less desirable than other modes of capital punishment on "retributive" grounds. It is an inappropriate application of the criminal sanction to impose a crueler sanction simply to inflict more suffering upon the offender. Retributive
Patrick Devlin, in his philosophical piece, The Enforcement of Morals, speaks in-depth about the importance of a societal morality. In large part he attests that a society functions properly when a shared morality is present amongst it’s people, therefore any violation of that collective mindset will threaten the foundation that holds a society together . Devlin proceeds his argument even further by stating, “Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral” . If the predicament involving the obese man and his actions is analyzed through the lens of Devlin’s notion, it can be claimed that although these actions are not harmful to other members of society, these actions are opposed by the general consensus of people, thus posing a threat to that society’s existence and advocating for immorality. Although this statement seems rather hyperbolic in regards to a sole obese man choosing to eat unhealthy foods, it carries more significance if a group of individuals decide to adopt this lifestyle.
The transgressor plays an inactive part, with no regard being had for the victim or community and with the authority figure actively measuring out the punishment. The transgressor thus becomes the object of punishment. In contrast, with the restorative justice approach, the transgressor is forced to participate actively in adjudicating the dispute. Accountability is therefore defined as understanding the impact of one’s actions, taking responsibility for one’s choices and suggesting ways to repair the harm. Since the transgressor's behaviour is seen as harm done to the victims, the transgressor and the community as a whole, the transgressor is obliged to repair the