Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Personal reflection on medical ethics
Ethical dilemmas in the medical field
Ethical dilemmas in the medical field
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Personal reflection on medical ethics
“Life is precious” is a common quote that has been used throughout the ages. In the medical world of today, we do all we can to preserve life. We go to such lengths that some wonder where we would stop. If you could save hundreds, or even millions of lives, by taking the lives of a few, would it be right? In the book titled “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro this question is explored in more depth. Using Ishiguro’s fictional book, along with historical documents of actual human experiment cases, we will explore the moral and ethical dilemma of sacrificing the lives of some in order to further medicine treatment of many.
The book “Never Let Me Go” is about a girl named Kathy and her friends, who were made and raised to ultimately donate their organs to society. The book takes Kathy’s perspective, giving insight into how it might be if you were raised so that ultimately you would die donating organs. This fictional book has many similarities to the historical document “Hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Health: Quality of Health Care- Human Experimentation, 1973”
The Senate Hearing
…show more content…
In these situations, the risk to human life could have been minimized had science used more ethical reasoning, especially when targeting these vulnerable populations. In the book children were chosen to be experimented on in order to further scientific medicine and prolong the lives of others. They were purposely kept uninformed and seen as lesser members of society, just as all of the Senate hearing studies were. Ethical reasoning was discredited so that society as a whole could medically advance. All of these scenarios tried to justify sacrificing the lives of some in order to save a larger population and that is where all of these scenarios went wrong. They did not value the life of the individuals who were taking part in the
The demand for human cadaver research continues to exist. Countless notions have been voiced to augment the supply of human cadavers. Science writer Mary Roach believes that our bodies are of significant importance above ground instead of below. In “The Cadaver Who Joined the Army” Mary Roach primarily focuses on the benefits of human cadaver research and how cadaver donation can be rewarding. Mary Roach bypasses the super-replicator beliefs of human cadaver research and highlights the joy one will receive after donating their body to research. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert primarily focuses on how surrogates pass on super-replicators in which we consider truthful. In “Reporting Live From Tomorrow” Gilbert presumes that e rely on super-replicators to make choices that will determine happiness. As a surrogate, Mary Roach convinces us that through informed consent, our decision to donate our bodies to cadaver research will bring happiness.
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.
Taylor, J. S. (2009). Autonomy and organ sales, revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34, 632-648.
Patients should have the ability in all situations to decide what happens to their bodies. This should be accompanied by the knowledge of risks associated with any particular procedure. Some physicians may attempt to circumvent this right for personal gain by omitting important information or simply utilizing force. This is where the debate over human experimentation arises. In a more civil setting, some patients don’t have the cognitive capacity to choose what is done with their tissues. In this case, the line of ethics becomes obscure.
Mercy killing, the act of taking someone who is undertaking immense pain or suffering, is required in situations such as Lennie’s, where someone is in the utmost danger of a slow, painful, and torturous death. George and Lennie’s situation offers a prime example of a mercy kill in ethical circumstance which the assisted death of another should be excused as morally justifiable. Therefore, mercy killing should not only be allowed, but we are obligated to act in a situation where someone is suffering as much as
Potential grave consequences that can result from irresponsible, or criminal, medical experiments. While we must be vigilant to protect innocent victims from such experimentation we cannot let that stifle our duty to continue making advances in healthcare and improving the lives of patients.
Once upon a time, I was a student ignorant of the issues plaguing our nation; issues such as abortion and a frightening scarcity of organ donors meant little to me, who was neither pregnant nor in need of replacement body parts. Today, I fortunately remain a simple witness to these scenarios rather than a participant, but I have certainly established a new perspective since reading Neal Shusterman’s Unwind several years ago.
Thesis: While driving on the highway recently, I saw a bumper sticker which read: “Please Don't Take Your Organs to Heaven, Heaven Knows That We Need Them Here” Approximately 7,000 Americans die annually while awaiting an organ transplant. In other countries of the world thousands more whose lives could be extended or transformed through transplants lost their lives because of unavailable organs. The waiting list is ever growing and the list of those willing to donate seems to be shrinking. This can be attributed to lack of motivation and knowledge among the prospective donors. According to a research done by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Kidney transplant, only one in ten people in need of a new kidney, manages to get one. The gap between supply and demand for organs has created a black market for body parts which has led to abuse of human life especially in third world countries. This high demand has led people to scour the globe to procure the organs they or their loved ones need and unscrupulous intermediaries offer help. There is a need to compensate those who are willing donate if this wide gap has to be bridged.
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
“In everyday life, men and women make decisions that affect the life and death of existing people. They decide whether to join the army; whether to donate blood, a kidney, or bone marrow to a child; whether to give money to Save the Children instead of buying a new sweater; whether to decline a life-saving blood transfusion; whether to drive a small fort on walls that may protect passengers in a crash but often kills those in less substantial vehicles” (Borgmann 23).
Experimentations on humans, even though essential for scientific progress, pose many ethical questions where we ask ourselves if we should continue disposing human bodies in the name of medicine. We hold the same old concern about a man’s obsession with knowledge where a discovery for the good of the majority might become a justifiable reason for exploiting one human being for the good of all.