Biotechnology has been progressing at a blazingly fast rate since the 1700s, when the first anesthetics were developed. Since then, many technologies have sprung from the void, which have assisted countless doctors around the globe diagnose and treat patients in a safer and more effective manner. An extremely promising division of the field has come in the form of genetic testing, which has applications other than medicine, such as forensics and security. Though genetic technology holds great potential for the future of biomedicine, like any technology, it arrives with its drawbacks, which must be extracted and corrected from its pure form. A primary ethical issue of genetic testing could come in the form of genetic discrimination.
In the United States alone, over two million people suffer from burns, and approximately seven million suffer from chronic wounds caused by diabetes, pressure, venous diseases, and arterial diseases (Branski, 2007). There are many complications that coincide with the wound healing process. This leads to increased rates of hospitalization, increased cost of healthcare, and decreased quality of life (Cutroneo, 2008). There are many treatments out there to heal wounds effectively or to deal with non-healing wounds. One way to improve outcomes, is by using gene therapy.
If someone needs an organ, then they should receive it. Everyone deserves to live. It doesn’t matter about race or religion. If you could save a person’s life without complicating yours, then you should do it. It makes no sense that someone would allow another human being to die because of the color of their skin.
With due respect, it is illegal to promote long-term or permanent birth control to the specific groups or individuals for the supposed good of society. In another context, it is illegal to perform any treatment on the patient without the legal doctrine of the informed consent. The state has an interest in protecting a minor from an inappropriate sterilization and may require court approval (Harris, 2008, p.
As Mill says: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” The harm principle thus protects people from each other, not from themselves. We can thus do whatever we want with our own bodies. Suicide is a personal decision, and it does not harm others physically. Mill’s theory would therefor allow assisted
There are a few certain things in life and one of those is death. Reason dictates that to prepare for it is a prudent thing to do, since it cannot be foreseen nor prevented. Getting funeral insurance is one way of having that peace of mind, even in death. Other benefits of being insured are listed below. Financial security Funeral insurance does not involve protection against an assumed risk; rather its purchase is tantamount to paying in advance a service to be rendered in a future time.
(Hendin and Foley, 2002) If terminally ill patients had easy access to euthanasia, this would lead to the absence of palliative care. Since the first amendment states freedom of religion, anyone can choose what religion they believe in. If the religion they believe in is against euthanasia, it should not be allowed. The fourteenth amendment states you can’t take away a person’s life. Religions, such as Islam, believe you can’t take away a person’s life.
PERSUASIVE SPEECH ORGAN DONATION How do you feel when you have to wait for something you really, really want? What if it was something you couldn’t live without? I will talk about organ donation and hope that you will take my veiws on organ donation on board and give someone the most amazing gift after you have passed away, the gift of life. At this moment in the US there are 84 000 U.S patients waiting for an organ transplant. The number of people on the waiting list is increasing every day.
They also state that it should be legalized because patients have the right to decide their own future. The doctor should not refuse a patient his rights; therefore, people who are for assisted suicide believe it is ethical because it is by the patient’s will. If a patient requests death, the doctor has no right to deny their will. People who agree with assisted suicide also claim that life does not depend on quantity, but quality. Even though this way of thinking seems rational, there are serious drawbacks that come with
There are many valid points as to why mandatory organ donations should not be legal, such as it is their body, and in America, we have a human right to our own bodies and what we do with it. But isn’t the biggest human right, the right to life? We have a human right to be alive. “One organ donor can save up to 8 lives.” (Learn the Facts) Who is anyone to take the right of life from someone, just because you are being selfish and have no beneficial use for your organs, when someone is dying because they need an organ of yours? I have to agree, that if organ donations did become legal, it would change the underlying meaning of organ donations, it wouldn’t be because you truly want to help people.