An immoral way would be to allow all people who overdose to die, with no chance of using Narcan to resuscitate them, thus causing widespread fear of the use of heroin and opiates. Narcan is a drug that is used to revive someone in the event of an overdose, but timing is critical, if you wait to long to administer the Narcan the person will die. A morally acceptable way would be to lower the amount of drug users. Doctors have taken a number of precautions such as limiting the amount of painkillers a patient can receive and even taking strong drugs off the market. These precautions have done very little to stop the use of opiates.
What will be the affect on society in exploiting the vulnerability and desperation of a drug-addict? What happens to those patients who are not seeking permanent birth control as a means of preventing reproduction but for the cash, $200? In the circumstances, who is liable for the damages should the procedure fail the purpose of birth control? As according to the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and Mr. Justice Homes affirmed to “prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind”, and the court would promote the best interests of the individual by means of detailed procedural requirements and would not sterilize individuals or groups for the supposed “good of society” (Harris, 2008, p. 266). 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.
However, of the approximate 10 million people who are currently imprisoned globally, it has been estimated that at least one million people are in prison for a drug related offence. This figure indicates that the number of people criminalized as a consequence of the 50 year ‘war on drugs’ goes into the millions. At the same time, there is no evidence that punitive enforcement measures significantly deter the use of drugs.” (PIR, 2013, Pg. 1). In short, the War on Drugs Legislation not only did not work it amplified the problem.
Although these two philosophers share a few similarities in their views, their accounts are starkly contrasting. Marquis could raise several objections to Tooley’s philosophy. In particular, he would question Tooley’s criteria for a right to life. It seems as if Tooley’s criteria essentially entails being self-autonomous and having developed into an adult to some degree- at least to the extent at which one is self aware. Marquis might argue, based on Tooley’s account, that a medical patient who is unconscious and unaware of a possible treatment is undeserving of medical attention, although that may seem contrary to the popular stance.
An article in the National Journal dispels the belief that improving mental health treatment will combat mass shootings. It states that multiple of the mass shooters in America had “no contact with the mental-health system” (Sanger-Katz, 2013). It is also states that statistics show that violent crimes are not often committed by the mentally ill. The belief by opponents is that because guns require something or someone to trigger them, they cannot kill on their own and the answer is not to limit the access to them. Because that would limit “the good guys” from owning them also.
The government shouldn’t have to baby their people, they can think for themselves. Removing the ability for them to have a choice strips people of their freedom, and America is built on the ideal of freedom. Adding on, the soda ban might not even have any health benefits. Referring back to Gross’ article, a nutritionist is quoted as saying, “It is not reasonable to blame or cite one product… [the proposal] produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity.” Even health experts disagree with the ban. This mandate supposedly improves people’s well-being, but it fails at accomplishing that goal.
Dyck’s book, “Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide,” details why PAS is unethical. One of Dyck’s first arguments comes from a story in which a patient, who initially requested PAS but later found enjoyment in other things and turned away from PAS. His argument stands in which he says that patient’s wishes can change and that when they find happiness and solace in other things they will understand that PAS is not the way to go (Dyck, 14-15). Dyck also explores the concept of how PAS is not as effective as comfort-only care. The physician has to remain willing to care for and the patient has to remain willing to be cared for and that is a respect for life.
Most people would never contemplate whether or not to end their family pet’s suffering, so why can’t people be as sympathetic to their family and friends? In today’s society, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is one of the most debatable topics. The debates on physician-assisted suicide go back and forth between whether or not patients, specifically terminally ill patients, should have the right to die with the aid of doctors. Opponents believe physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong for patients to end their lives, and they believe it violates basic medical standards. However, proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe it is a humane and safe way for terminally ill patients to resolve their agony.
This is considered a divine law which shouldn’t be changed for the good of a few people, much like how a state law can’t contradict a federal law. For physicians and the general public that disagree with assisted suicide feel that assisted suicide can give society the approval to kill. “Legislation that allows people to end their lives automatically creates incentives to seek death as a cost-saving option. The elderly and infirm are seen as burdens and can easily be disposed of. Suicide becomes the easy way out.” (Ben Broussard) Most of the time physicians are against the idea of physician assisted suicide because it goes against their job description and personal beliefs.
In 2008 there were slightly over sixteen thousand murders in the united states just under eleven thousand of those were done with guns (Gun control-Just facts). There were also five million violent crimes but only eight percent of those involved a firearm (Gun control-Just Facts). Many crimes are committed with guns but another person also stops many with one. A survey of convicted criminals reveled that over forty percent decided not to commit the crime because they knew that the other person possessed a gun (gun Control-Just Facts). From statistics like that it can be concluded that restricting gun control will make crimes more common.