Health Science In order to decide on the two approaches of micro-allocation, we narrow our thinking to the views of the two bioethicists Paul Ramsey and James Childress, who differ in opinion. Therefore, from their opinion, I will be able to use my rational thinking to decide on the best opinion. First, I have to define micro-allocation. Micro-allocation is the allocation of scarce resources to individuals through decision making in tough situations where not all can access the resources. Tough decisions can no longer be avoided and especially when the resources are scarce and the demand is escalating and everybody requires them. Therefore, the welfare of those who require the services most must be taken into consideration (Nord 1993).
The decision on how the resources should be allocated involves two approaches, utilitarian and egalitarian. Paul Ramsey supports the utilitarian approach which argues that when the resources are limited, then priority should be given to persons who are more productive in society (Nord 1993). On the other hand. Childress (1997) supports the egalitarian by insisting that every citizen has a right to equal health care, and all are means may be used to ensure that the resources are be paid to them even in times of dearth. He continues to emphasize that no discrimination of any manner should deprive one from getting the health care resources. In my opinion, the egalitarian draw near is the best approach because it views all human beings as equal irrespective of your status. There is no life of a human being is more important than the other. All citizens are worthy of the right to be alive and consequently should be accorded the right without discrimination. R
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
The idea of racism has evolved and has become less prevalent throughout the last century. Schools and public areas are unsegregated, voting rights, racial slurs being considered as unacceptable behavior etc. American sociologist and race theorist, Howard Winant states that’s “The ensuing approaches increased recognition of racial injustice and inequality, but did not overcome the discriminatory processes” (Winant,2000)Although the United states has come a long way to try to end racism, one cannot ignore the fact that it still exists. It is something that may seem invisible in society, but everybody knows that it still thrives and that it’s racial attitudes affect the way our society functions. One of these invisible forms of racism is called microagression. Microagression is the theory that certain interactions between different races can be interpreted as small acts of verbal aggression. Racial micro aggression has caused many behavior and identity problems between races in today’s society. In the article, "Microagressions in everyday life", Dr. Derald Wing Sue states that “Microaggressions are similar to carbon monoxide - “invisible, but potentially lethal” - continuous exposure to these type of interactions “can be a sort of death by a thousand cuts to the victim” It is a common experience that many people of different racial groups deal within their every day lives. They are harmful to society, creating a hostile environment, dividing people apart, creating inequalities, and decreasing productivity in the work and school environment.
Arguably, “Death’s waiting list” discusses a crucial topic of our times, regardless of how sincere Satel is in her argument, she does provide alternatives worth further analysis and consideration, after all, incentives are not that appalling to winning someone’s consent. Further research and public poles should be set up to take a deeper look into such alternative systems, yielding with insight to whether Satel’s suggestions potential in remedying this shortage of organs. While her argument might not be ideal, it does shed the light on this rising issue, and provides us with a place to start looking for solutions.
In addition, this will increase the misuse of money given to those individuals who are given the aid. If we were to select individuals to give the money to, there is no guarantee that this money will be spent wisely. Just as time is precious, money is too.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
The principle of distributive justice as it relates to healthcare requires that all resources are allocated equitably among all individuals. Resources, whether abundant or scare are distributed fairly to any individual requiring them but in the constrained resource environment of available organs criteria have already been established by other agencies. First and foremost the establishment of these criteria negate the principle of distributive justice because there are individuals who regardless of their place on the waiting list will be turned away. On the other hand individuals with higher incomes or additional financial means have the advantage over those with limited financial assets if advertising and purchasing organs is the future trend of transplant surgery. Again distributive justice is violated, this time ...
People in support of organ transplantation argue the cost/benefit ration and have determined their arguing points to be these: Social Responsibility, Improves the Quality of Life, alleviation of familial grief, encourages hope to live, lessens the cost of patient care, improves research and research methods. The opposing side offers an alternative view, offering these augment points: Risk of complication during and after surgery, degradation of health in the long run, adverse physiological effect on donor’s family, financial burden, objections based on religious belief, unethical trade and harvesting of human organs, and finally, the donor has no rights to choose the recipient.
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.
Allocation criteria: Organs should be allocated according to clear and established criteria. There may also be a policy for organ exchange
8. Pellegrino, Edmund D., “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics. 22 July 2007
Raja Mishra puts forward the idea of death row prisoners being able to donate an organ for a life sentence. This creates the argument that the race to meet the growing demand for organs is outweighing important moral values. Ethicists say this is a slippery slope and amounts to a de facto organ sale. But Mishra argues “it is a chance for murderers to give back exactly what they've taken: a life.” These valuable organs should not be allowed to needlessly go to waste in such a large shortage. The organs of these prisoners are valuable and could put a sizeable dent in the ever growing list of those needing organ donations.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
Micromax was registered as “Micromax Informatics Private Ltd.” in March 29, 2000 with its registered office in New Delhi. The company is 10th largest mobile handset manufacturer in the world & second largest smartphones company in India. It was co-founded by Rajesh Agarwal, Sumeet Arora, Rahul Sharma & Vikas Jain.Four of them holds important portfolios in the firm:-
The two indices penetration of microfinance (MPI) and Intensity of penetration of microfinance among poor (MPPI) have been presented in the 2009 report for the first time. The calculation of the index has been carried out as follows:
Jecker, N., Jonsen, A., Pearlman, R. and Rachels, J. 2007. Bioethics. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.