Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Pro-choice & Pro-life
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion.Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights.
The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.
Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States). Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong.
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
Research on Euthanasia
Active euthanasia is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal in a presumably painless or minimally painful way, usually by lethal injection.Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care or treatments become available. It is legal in some nations, while in others it may be criminalized. Due to the gravity of the issue, strict restrictions and proceedings are enforced regardless of legal status.
Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of conflicting moral feelings both for the individual and between different cultures, ethnicities, religions and other groups.
Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals.
Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.
Example
Euthanasia is illegal in most states in the United States.
Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.
In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:
-the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she is unlikely to make a recovery;
-the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as a living will or the testimony of the family;
-the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.
For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:
-the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
death must be inevitable and drawing near;
-the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
-the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.
Dr. Kevorkian allegedly assisted only by attaching the individual to a device that he had made. The individual then pushed a button which released the drugs or chemicals that would end his or her own life. Two deaths were assisted by means of a device which employed a needle and delivered the euthanizing drugs mechanically through an IV. Kevorkian called it a "Thanatron" (death machine). Other patients were assisted by a device which employed a gas mask fed by a canister of carbon monoxide which was called "Mercitron" (mercy machine).
Reasons given FOR Voluntary Euthanasia:
1) Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
2) Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
3) Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists.
4) Moral: Some people consider euthanasia to be just another choice a person makes, and for moral reasons against it to be undue influence by others.
5) Pressure: All the arguments against voluntary euthanasia can be used by society to form a terrible and continuing psychological pressure on people to continue living for years against their better judgement. One example of this pressure is the risky and painful methods that those who genuinely wish to die would otherwise need to use, such as hanging.
6) Sociobiology: Currently many if not most euthanasia proponents and laws tend to favor the dying or very unhealthy for access to euthanasia. However some highly controversial proponents claim that access should be even more widely available. For example, from a sociobiological viewpoint, genetic relatives may seek to keep an individual alive (Kin Selection), even against the individual's will. This would be especially so for individuals who are not actually dying anyway. More liberal voluntary euthanasia policies would empower the individual to counteract any such biased interest on the part of relatives.
Reasons given AGAINST Voluntary Euthanasia:
1) Professional role: Critics argue that VE could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that every doctor must swear upon some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which they interpret as explicitly excluding euthanasia.
2) Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable.
This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
3) Theological: Voluntary euthanasia often has been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians and Jews argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans ought not make the choice to end life. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider VE (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
4) Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
5) Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to be attempting to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
6) Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
7) Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public monies, as in various European counties, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent. While VE proponents concede that personal and even socialized economic costs may add to the motivations for consent, they point out that health systems offer sufficient exceptions so as to relieve the pressure on hospital personnel.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
'The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder' Do you agree?
Arguments from critics over the death penalty as a form of capital punishment exists since it became lawful. The developed nations – United States, Japan, South Korea and Singapore which practice capital punishment consider people who are involved in first degree murder, terrorist activities, treason or activities which threaten the national security as committing capital crimes. Is the death penalty really a form of justice, serving as a deterrent or is it murder for revenge?Murder under the law, as defined by an online dictionary, is the killing of another human being with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation. So personally, I do not equate the death penalty as committing a murder as I believe in the neccessity of it as a precedent to others. The word which describes what one will feel from ancient methods of execution like crucifixation and tearing asunder to today’s hanging, injecting lethal substances and poison gas chamber is ‘fear’. People will thus first think of the consequences of their actions before executing them as fear strikes a reminder to them. Therefore, the death penalty serves as a deterrent warning to others against the consequences of crime, preventing repeat offences.
Death penalty makes an example of the felon, assuring the public that he no longer poses a threat to the society. In addition, it is also a way to return justice to the victim and his family members. Try putting yourself in the shoes of the family members of the murdered victim. I believe that the ‘life for a life’ feeling will be overwhelming even though the death of the murderer will never bring him back to life. It just serves as a very good form of comfort.
This lead to why the death penalty seems to be a murder instead of a deterrent as it makes people assume that personal emotions of the judiciary are involved so it is a form of revenge. The irreversibility in miscarriages of justice can create a very great impact on the society and perhaps people should consider what Voltaire, a French philosopher in the 17th century said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”
Moreover, who would want to die in such horrifying and undignified ways?
Supporters of the statement for this essay believe that rehabilitation should be favored over the death penalty as everyone has the rights and should be given a chance to turn over a new leaf. Researches have discovered that people who have committed capital crimes usually suffer from the ‘diminished responsibility’ syndrome where they do not have conscious or sympathy, not mentioning the concept of guilt or code of morality. So should they be hanged or be electrocuted to death because of the fact that they committed murder in a mentally unstable state? Do they deserve it when they are doing it unintentionally?
Moreover, what rights do we human have to play god in taking another’s life? It is obvious and understandable that two wrongdoings do not make a right; we are practicing retributive justice if we do that and thus, we are committing a murder.
However, after arguments from both sides, I disagree that death penalty is a murder. My view of it as a form of deterrent still stands strong as I believe that the consequences of committing capital crimes will serve as a very good warning and aforethought to people before they put on hands to what they want to do. All should be aware and carry the responsiblities of their actions.
*9.55pm*
Dreamt by Shurlene min at