Euthanasia, meaning ‘gentle, easy death’, is known as the act of ending somebody’s life painlessly in order to relieve suffering. This is a common topic for debate, with many arguments about whether it is morally wrong to end somebody’s life in the circumstances of extreme illness. People such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of Situation Ethics, may suggest that euthanasia may be the most loving thing in certain situations, and is therefore morally right. However, other people, such as Aquinas, founder of Natural Moral Law, would disagree, stating that it goes against the precept of preserving life, and is therefore morally wrong, no matter the situation. Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated.
This system of selling vital organs on a highest bid to me is highly unethical. First of all, how can the highest bidder know that the organ he or she is about to spend immense amount of money on is the right match? Second of all, how is that fair to those who really need that specific organ to live another day but simply cannot afford it, let along place bids on compared to those millionaires who have the means to do so? Not only would such a system sell and implant organs without scientific evaluation, but it would also ensure many deaths of those who are in need of these organs, but have no means to purchase this gift of life. This free fall system would also weaken the OPTN system.
It started off as a way to advance science and help society but the greed of money took over. So because there is no regulations or policies people will do what they must to make a profit. Like in the example above knowing the donor had a disease but selling the tissue anyway. There are now regulations for tissue donations but not for the human remains business as a whole. Once regulations are put in place they need to be enforced and organizations need to be audited to make sure they are within compliance.
I think that making the process shorter would make it more tolerable for potential donors. I suppose to be an organ donor you cannot have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, as these factors can cause damage to the organs that will be donated, which may be hard for some people. I need to learn about any issues organ donating may cause for the government. I would research if organ donning could be considered an unethical process and cause friction between the government and the public. I also need to look at the economic effects of the transplant operations.
Other issues arise when a person is declared dead when they really aren’t because sometimes mistakes can be done in authentication. Living donors are not left out either in ethical discussions. Some think it is wrong to mutilate a person for the sake of another. For instance, the catholic denomination consider organ transplantation unethical because it goes against the totality principle which states that one part of the body can be sacrificed for the well-being of the rest of the body. No one is obliged to give their organs as a donation and therefore the informed consent has also been an ethical issue.
Similarly, the same group believes that legalizing euthanasia could lead to abuse and murder. On the contrary, supporters of euthanasia disagree that legalizing assisted suicide in all states would lead to doctors murdering and abusing patients because of the strict guidelines. Several safeguards and precautions are taken when it comes to the practice of euthanasia (Cockeram 7). Mental capability tests are ran to prove that the patient is mentally stable and capable of making the decision themselves (Coster 24). After the tests are inspected by medical professionals to determine the patient rational, the next safe guard is put into action.
Could a convict make amends for his or her crimes by donating a kidney or an eye? This question has been asked by people who are concerned about the fairness of transplant policies and the lack of available organs. An organ donor can only donate an organ if s/he isn 't given valuable consideration. The following information that is shown is my opinion. When I asked the question about amends for donating organs the two opposite sides were the following: Yes, prisoners that are serving long sentences would be willing without pay, and NO, prisoners are in prison for a reason, and they shouldn 't be allowed amends.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights. But they should not have the freedom to choose to end their own lives with the help of a physician.
If they don’t pass the test to buy a gun, they still able to buy a gun from the black market. Since America has the right to sold gun, some of the evil people sale illegal gun to make benefits. If we banned gun, it helps reduce the chance of them to make mistake shoot people, save life, and take less risk to black-market. Gun wasn’t help protection in some case, it may lead to kill people by accident and another dangerous situation. Collier Charles W points out that gun for self-defense is a bad idea in his article.
This result in the low chances of a viable organ from the dead to reach and save the life of the living. In “Yes, Lets Pay for Organs” Charles Krauthammer talks about paying the dead not living for organ donation to decrease the lack of it. He fails to see with both living and dead the odds of a successful transplant get
Technology is as much of a friend as it is an enemy. On the one hand improved technology and electronic health records can help save lives by identifying allergies sooner but, one the other hand if the medical records are compromised by unwanted eyes of a neighbor or worst hacker privacy for the individuals are gone forever. Another hurdle facing the nationalized health system in this litigious society in which we live are employer funded insurance policies. Companies that are religious or have religious interest are contesting parts of the Affordable Care Act. For example, Hobby Lobby sued the government so that they “would not have to provide coverage for contraceptives for its employees” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Strine, 2015, p. 91).
I think it’s wrong for the government to penalize physicians for not meeting compliance standards. However, It’s a great opportunity for the government to aim at small practices because this is where physicians are self-employed. These types of physicians have numerous clinic or health care facilities and are most likely to commit fraud. This seems kind of biased, but it’s true. According to, Ornstein, the most common sanctions are against physicians who have odd Medicare billing reputations (2014, title).