Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a
Allen Verhey raises different and valid points that scripture is to be read as a canon. However, he also makes an argument that scripture should not be treated as a “medical text.” Elaborating on this idea, it does suggest that it might be purely fundamental way of thought and attitude, if one used scripture for one’s personal and selfish purpose or even took the scripture literal. It is noteworthy to read that Verhey also states about treating scripture as “dated” with respect to the medical practice in the contemporary context, is a “corruption of the practice.” This is true especially when the readers of scripture, which can be a non-believer, or in other contexts, Christians themselves can consider scripture to be a piece of text that
It is believed that an individual’s medical choices should not be governed. This is also a valid point. However, the decision to not vaccinate ones child not only affects the child’s health but the health of others. This point alone validates why it necessary to mandate vaccinations for all
The absence of informed consent disallowed the partakers to make informed decisions about participation in the research study. The participants continued to be misled from the beginning to the conclusion of the study. Thankfully, specific laws have been enacted to avoid missteps like the ones that occurred in the Tuskeegee Experiment. The National Research Act Public Law 93-348 was signed to address ethical practices in research. From this, a committee was borne that identified the ethical principles that should be included in studies that involve human subjects.
Like Psychologist Diana Baumrind did so in her article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments”. Where she makes it very clear that she disagrees with causing individuals stress and discomfort. In her article, Baumrind states “It is potentially harmful to a subject to commit, on the course of an experiment, acts which he himself considers unworthy, particularly when he has been entrapped into committing such acts by an individual he has reason to trust” which in this case the trustworthy individual would be Stanley Milgram. Baumrind also worried about the dangers of the serious aftereffects that may ensure because of the stress and discomfort Stanley Milgram’s experiment has caused. Even though Stanley Milgram states that “After the interview, procedures were undertaken to assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well-being.”
But in Donald’s case it was the total opposite. He went to the hospital with his mind already made up to die, which goes against what the doctors have being taught to do, and the principle of beneficence. The doctors decided to reject his autonomy because they knew he had an immense possibility of having a happy live and not just simply acting in a paternalistic way. In the end the doctors decisions was the right choice, when Donald stated, “I am enjoying life now, and I’m glad to be alive” (Munson6).
Matthew Gafrick Putman Hour 5 15 November 2016 Argument Paper Ethics is the standard form of right and wrong, what others can or can't do. Ethics helps people to not commit bad deeds, and it helps them to live up to standards. In the book Flowers for Algernon two doctors need to make an ethical decision. It's on weather or not to preform an operation on an unintelligent man named Charlie Gordon. Charlie Gordons doctors did not act ethically when they preformed the surgery to make him smart; because they took advantage of his condition and failed to share the possible consequences to Charlie.
On the topic of treatment of human test subjects, the article “Ethics of Fieldwork” states, “Special care must be taken with people who are unable to understand or who are particularly susceptible to coercion.” These precautions were not exercised with Charlie, which many would believe to be
Ethics of Gattaca In recent discussions of the film Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, a controversial issue has been whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis which is diagnosing a persons diseases before they are born using their genetics is ethical. On the one hand, some argue that the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is unethical. From this perspective, to discard babies who's lives would be greatly effected and much harder than others due to diseases that could be diagnosed before birth is unethical. Humans should not be able to “play God” or in other words decide another human’s fate no matter what.
The Pro-choice stances sees it that Hippocrates didn’t think abortion was wrong but the technique is what had him worried due to putting danger on the mother. Either stance clearly shows we need to raise awareness on a topic that is
People against his research would say that he had no right to say these things because the people that he would single out in his articles were pioneers and were working before standards were set for human research (Rothman, 1991). This exactly states the problem as to what bioethicists and Beecher were trying to fix, which was the lack of thought and care for putting a human being through potential pain and torture without their knowledge and consent. Researchers will no longer be allowed to be the martyrs of thousands of innocent people in the name of unethical and non consensual scientific experimentation (Rothman,
Engagement can resolve ethical conflicts because it combines the views of both patient and nurse by looking at what is good and right (Moore, Engel, & Prentice, 2014). Should Michael choose to tell his parents the truth, Amir should be present and provide support as well as advice or a private place for the conversation. Amir should also be readily prepared with information and resources to help with the next steps. He should reassure the family members that the truth will not affect Michael’s well-being, rather hiding the truth will take away opportunities like formulation of will and last goodbyes with family and friends. Amir should also speak to the family and attempt to determine the justification for being upset with their son if he chooses to find out the
The Lacks family would probably disagree with this argument, since their experience with a cell “abduction” has led to neglect, withholding of information, and a dehumanization resulting from lack of credit and recognition given to Henrietta Lacks. Despite all of the grievances and injustices, the Lacks cannot deny the scientific uses and progress enabled by the cells; one can only wonder what would have become of medical research if the HeLa line had not been
She believes that both the Witch-Doctors and Attilas are sworn enemies of reason. She believes that the With Doctors are preaching a wrong sense of morality as morality should be defined by every person and should never be imposed on them through guilt as religions do most of the time. The Witch-Doctor also “pre-empts the field of morality” (Rand, 12). She says that “a society based on and geared to the conceptual level of man’s consciousness, a society dominated by a philosophy of reason, has no place for the rule of fear and guilt” (Rand, 20). Fear and guilt are both Attilas and the Witch-Doctors methods of asserting dominance, for Ayn Rand, rationality can’t flourish when someone is vulnerable to fear and guilt.
Especially when the parents are unable to understand the dangers or refuse treatment. And if the safety of the child’s life is at risk, the hospital must report it to the authorities. This would allow the use of child protective services on either grounds of neglect or imminent danger. This would then allow a prominent legal guardian to take place and medical treatment can swiftly be treated as reports are being made. This approach may seem very plausible due to the nature of the case being mainly based on child negligence.