Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Underestimated impact of decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Underestimated impact of decision making
Did you know that 55% of all deaths are caused by poor decisions? We have an innate drive to help us interpret different situations and that impacts how we react to the chaos of life. People should not be held accountable for their actions in life-or-death situations because something could happen unexpectedly, people have no other choice, or because some people panic, which is not their fault, and risk their lives and the lives of others. One main reason why people should not be held accountable in life-or-death situations is that something unexpected could happen. In the argumentative text, “The Cost Of Survival,” the author describes how people doing regular activities can cause unexpected danger. For instance,
the author portrays how a family member got surprisingly sick on a ship in the middle of the ocean, “...a family of four called for help when their child became ill” (126). The family would have never guessed their child would become ill so suddenly. In other words, they didn’t see this coming, so it is not their fault. Another example could be when a person was hurt and there was no one in sight to help and you tried to take care of them, but they suddenly die because they lost tons of blood. It was not your fault, you were trying to help but you did not know what was wrong with them. Unexpected things happening is the main reason why People should not be held accountable in life-or-death situations. Another reason why people should not be held accountable in life-or-death situations is that people might have no other choice. In the novel excerpt, “Life Of Pi,” Yann Martel reveals that Pi had no choice but to kill the fishes that flew on his boat and the one that he caught to feed Richard Parker. If Pi didn’t feed Richard Parker than he would have eaten him. To illustrate, while Pi was in the boat with Richard Parker, “And I wasn’t even fishing for myself. I had plenty of food in store”(Martel 204). Pi went against his religion to kill any kind of living thing to survive from Richard Parker. His family should not criticise him for his decision because he had no other choice.
Everyday thousands of individuals put their lives at risk for no more than a sense of thrill. These daredevils decisions usually result in situations that require rescues that cost society large amounts of tax dollars. People who put themselves in a life-or-death situation should be held accountable for their rescue and should also be responsible for their actions. Being in a life-or-death situation does not excuse anyone from choosing a wrong path while knowing it isn’t the correct decision.
Death is not a concept that is well grasped or understood but we all know the cycle of life, we live and we die. We do not know how and we do not know when, our fate is laid out for us, we just learn to accept it because it is just how it goes. Some are lucky enough to live a healthy life with few to none complications and some find themselves fighting for their lives because of a terminating illness or severely injured from any type of accident. In an act of pain, torture, agony and knowing there is no hope for survival why can it not be you that has the upper hand in deciding when it is time to say goodbye.
Life or Death? I see it fitting to start off by actually explaining what “Right to Die” is. The Right to Die is a principle based on a person’s choice to terminate their life or to endure voluntary euthanasia. The two Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional Right to Die are Cruzan by Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Washington V. Glucksberg . The first of these cases is based on the constitutional right of the state to interfere with medical decisions. Whether the state has a right to withhold the parent’s decision to remove life-sustaining support from their child. While the second case argues whether the state has a right to restrict a patient’s decision to partake in Physician Assisted Suicide.
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
The topic of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic across North America. Although both supporters and critics have expressed very different and logical views on the matter, competent terminal patients should be given the right to decide when they want to end their overall suffering. Euthanasia in Canada distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. Active, is the act of intentionally killing a person to relieve pain. While withholding or taking away life-preserving procedures such as water and food, is passive. Over the last few years, Canada, more specifically Ontario has gained permission by provincial courts to end their life ahead of the federal government 's new law. In 2015, The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life.” (medterms.com) Surveys have shown physician-assisted suicide to be gaining more and more support amongst doctors and “up to half of adults believe it should be legal in cases of terminal illnesses.” (Vaugn, Page 597) In a 2000 large survey, Oncologists revealed 22.5% supported the use of physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with unremitting pain, 6.6% favored active euthanasia in these circumstances, 56.2% had received requests from patients for physician assisted suicide, 38.2% for active euthanasia, 10.8% had performed physician-assisted suicide and 3.7% active euthanasia. (Vaughn, Page 598) Not only have physician-assisted suicide begun gaining more support amongst physicians but also in the public. In a 2007 survey conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, results have shown that 48% of the public believe it should be legal or doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own life by giving them a prescription of fatal drugs while 44% believe it should be illegal. (Vaughn, Page 603) In the 2007 Gallup Poll, results show 56% of the public believes when a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, doctors should be allowed to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patients requests it and 38% believe it should not be allowed and 49% of the public believes that physician-assisted suicide is morally acceptable while 44% beli...
The problem of euthanasia, like abortion and other controversial dilemmas of our times, divides society almost the whole of the Western world on its supporters and opponents.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
The question of euthanasia is one that has plagued the human sense of morale for centuries. With modern medical technology it becomes even more pressing. I will cover three aspects of Euthanasia including three principles for, three principles against, and my own conclusion as to why Euthanasia is morally justified.
Why do always assume what someone is from when we first hear about them? A lot of us end up assuming what someone looks like as well as what they might be like. We always do this and it just isn't right to do that. We do the exact same with Death. Though not everyone will do this, there are some who will. Death is not all that his name says, but were blind to see past that.
People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in, and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized, it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose trust in the government, thus unraveling the fabric of society.... ...
It is the authors’ intention to argue that some forms of euthanasia, to be exact, passive nonvoluntary and in exceptionally rare cases indirect euthanasia are morally permissible. However it must be noted that due to the limit of words and more importantly the authors’ lack of experience surrounding euthanasia, the claim of permissibility reflects that of the authors’ recent course readings and my emergent experience thereof. In addition to this it must also be noted that euthanasia cannot be evaluated exclusively. That euthanasia unquestionably is connected with the very questions that endeavor to understand life and death. My arguments descend from articles written by authors such as; Rachel’s, Steinbock, Beauchamp and Foot.
If life were merely a contest with fate, then should we not think before we act? Though some may argue that the proper time to reflect is before acting, I have learned from experience that, more times than not, this is not the best approach. The ability to act on instinct is crucial to success, in many situations. During an earthquake, for instance, one must quickly respond in whichever way necessary to protect themselves, as well as their loved ones. No matter how prepared, or trained, one may be, there is no way to predict what the essential motions should be taken at the time of an emergency.