n this paper, I will argue that Dr. Ewing Cook’s actions were morally impermissible by showing that most of the reasons he used to justify his actions of hastening the death of Jannie Burgess are what we called the “slippery slope arguments”. First, I will provide a little context of what Dr. Cook had done to patient Jannie Burgess and the reasons he used to justify his actions. Next, I will defend my thesis by presenting some arguments against Dr. Cook’s reasons and actions, which will lead me to conclude that Dr. cook’s action were morally impermissible. Last but not least, I will address some possible objections to my position. First, let’s take a look at what had Dr. Cook done to patient Jannie Burgess and the arguments he used to justify …show more content…
Amongst such desperate situations, Dr. Cook only saw two options: to abandon the patients or to hasten their deaths. He chose the latter because he believed that it was the humane thing to do under such circumstances and he felt no remorse for what he did. Here are the four beliefs that Dr. Cook shared with he author: “ (1) Given how difficult it had been for him to climb the steps in the heat, there was no way he could make it back to the I.C.U. again. (2) Given how exhausted everyone was and how much this woman weighed, it would be impossible to drag her down six flights of stairs. (3) Even in the best circumstances, the patient probably had a day or so to live. And frankly, the four nurses taking care of her were needed elsewhere. ” (p.10) In other words, Dr. Cook believed that his health condition (that doesn’t allow him to get back to the eighth floor I.C.U.), the physical exhaustion both mentally and physically of the nurses, the woman’s weight (350 pounds), and the woman chronic health condition were enough to justify his action to hasten the death of the patient Jannie Burgess, so that he can get the four nurses off the floor, where they can be more useful. Now that we have a clear picture of Dr. Cook’s
Upon first hearing the story of the fateful night of Kitty Genovese and her brutal murder, the room for speculation on the part of the neighbors seems to be slim. Thirty-eight people chose, during this situation, to see or hear what was going on but then did nothing. One could seemingly argue—and very easily—this is immoral and unethical. This assumption is based on a pre-set societal standard. A standard that was made by people who may not have necessarily ever been in such a situation.
Federal MP Anna Burke is asking the Senate committee to review hospitals ' food administration and medication, particularly their anaphylaxis management. On Sunday, Ms Burke called the Senate 's attention to review the hospitals ' anaphylaxis management in a bid to improve medical centers ' standards, particularly to make them fully equip in handling patients with high allergies on food and substances. Ms Burke 's call came after she heard the news about the tragic death of Louis Tate, a 13 year old boy who passed away in October at Frankston Hospital. His death was linked to the hospital 's food preparation. It is believed that the health institute served him a food that he was allergic to, although the staff were aware about his food
Other court cases were used during this trial to show their rulings and that they were not found inhumane. The effective use of logos in the court document helps persuade the audience that the case of Oregon Vs Tuel, were Mr. Tuel who committed a less offensable crime, but still received a life sentence that was within the guidelines of the state constitution. Judge Haselton of the Oregon Court of Appeal effectively uses rhetorical appeals to support the court’s original sentence as constitutional and fair. The use of expert doctors Bolstad and Sacks to determine that the possibility of rehabilitation is almost impossible and very unlikely for Mr. Kinkel.
It is fathomable that it is an exceedingly difficult position to face and the decision the judge came up was equally challenging, however, there must be an alternative resolution. Whether we look to deontological the inquiry ethics and ethical decisions based on an emerging behavior the manner on this court case shed light on what is deemed “right” or the other hand who is honestly worth protecting. I have to irradiate that Immanuel Kant the German philosopher statement applies in this court case, “that all consequentialist theories missed something crucial to ethics by neglecting the concept of
The Due to the many medical dysfunctions that happened while Dr. Moe Mathis was in charge, this physician faces a major accusation of medical malpractice. However, when the physician saw the possible mistake he did in identifying Mr. Swensen’s medical condition, he decided to do justice by himself and falsify the medical reports for prostate cancer by doing a second cross-check of the prostate. But, what he did was use the prostate of another patient who indeed had prostate cancer at a similar stage as the initial diagnoses of Howard Swenson. This constitutes Fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, which is a major offence and moreover committed by a trusted, and respected medical professional. Additionally, by removing the prostate of a dead patient to use it to change Mr. Swenson’s medical reports, Moe violated a human corpse, and this constitutes desecration of a human body.
Consequently taking away the patients decision and instead giving physicians full control to seemingly “play god”, as the decision is now in their hand. Through this problem within the medical community, society has inadvertently traded off ethics in pursuit for common good (Martinez). Because of this, such practices as benevolent deception in hospitals had room to emerge during the Jim Crow era. As doctors apparently took the decision of the patient in their own hands. Benevolent deception was a widely common practice during the times of Henrietta Lacks.
Both living and dying are both parts of life. In the healthcare field, death can not always be prevented. In Living and Dying in Brick City by Sampson Davis, MD, Sampson. Davis takes the reader to a journey that Davis has experienced.
Lennie, a lighthearted and compassionate character, was suddenly killed by George, the person he considered his best friend. Now, we must ask ourselves; did George do the right thing? Lennie, killing Curley’s wife, would’ve spent the remainder of his life in misery, but was it morally correct of George to take his life? He would’ve had no break from the sights of a prison cell and the cold dark concrete walls, but was it considered manslaughter to kill a person of significance in your life? He would’ve had no rest from the constant illness of guilt that controlled not only his brain but, his life, but was it lawfully justified in a court setting?
Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.
Once I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder I learned about, Farmer a physician activist who’s the subject of this book, subtitled: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, A Man Who Would Cure the World. I can relate somewhat to this book one because I myself am HIV positive and seeing how one doctor is doing so much to help these people that have this diseases is very reassuring. Knowing that this man has dedicated his whole life to helping the poor get the proper meds to keep living there lives as normal as possible. So who is this savior?
Opening Statement State v. Trepalt May it please the court, counsel, and members of the jury. In sickness and in health, until death do us part, is not an invitation to commit murder. On Thanksgiving Weekend, after a party, the Trepalt’s were driving home.
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.
A Doctors Dilemma I do not like the essay, “A Doctors Dilemma” written by James Dillard. The whole story was well written, but contradicting. The persuasion was driven by whether to help a dying person or save his future career.
Flowers for Algernon Argumentative essay Intelligence is a valued aspect to many people, but it can be achieved in options that aren’t labeled “intelligence-altering surgery”. The doctors, Dr.Nemur and Dr. Strauss do not follow the ethics of fieldwork. They chose the wrong person, Charlie Gordon, to do the surgery on, and didn’t wait to find out that the side-effects include death. In Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, the doctors made a bad choice by choosing Charlie Gordon for the intelligence-altering surgery.
The Terri Schiavo case was a huge start of the “Right to Die” movement, the underlying cause of Schiavo’s collapse was never given a diagnosis. Consequentialist moral theories focus on how much good can result from an action. Non Consequentialist moral theories or Deontological theories, consider not the consequences of an action but whether they fulfill a duty. Some theories that can be used include utilitarianism, Kant’s ethics and natural law theory. Being aware of the case already, I believe there should be some sort of law that gives doctors to comply with the wishes of the patient if they are in a lot of distress.