Composing Corpses: Act Utilitarianism Debra Limehouse PHI1600 Studies in Applied Ethics Professor Cappleman 3/6/2016 Main ethical issue: Katrina Spade wants to come up a better method to disposing of the dead. Her project, known as the Urban Death Project is envisioned to have people bring their corpses into a composting facility, place the bodies on a core during a ceremony and then within a few months the bodies would be fully decomposed. She would then use the ashes as a soil to be used in public parks or given to family members. Consumers did not like this idea because they saw that this type of act was disrespectful, disgusting and repulsive to cultural and religious traditions. Application: As I have learned in Chapters 4 and 5 of the text, Act …show more content…
Stake holder 1: consumers (12,000) Views it as ethically and morally wrong (-6x12,000) Disrespectful to religion and the deceased (-5x12,000) Legal issues involved. (-3x12,000) Upset and outraged and hope this does not get approved. (+5x12,000) Stake Holder 2: Funeral homes (1,000) Could be put out of business or face slow business if her project is considered (-3x1,000) Sales pitches to enhance business such as advertising, marketing themselves more (-5x1,000) Less work for them to do if family members chose for their loved one to be cremated (-7x1,000) Unused office spaces, equipment and or materials (-4x1,000) Stake Holder 3: Katrina Backlash from consumers. (-8) Thinking about environmentally friendly options (+10) Saves money on funeral costs yet (+7) Wants to see her project go through but could face legal issues (+5) Net Utility -75,008 -64,990 -42,993 +8,010 (-10 being the lowest and 10 being the highest amount of
It’s hard for a family to go through this and the terminally ill want to save their families from as much heart break as they can.
“In most human society's death is an extremely important cultural and social phenomenon, sometimes more important than birth” (Ohnuki-Tierney, Angrosino, & Daar et al. 1994). In the United States of America, when a body dies it is cherished, mourned over, and given respect by the ones that knew the person. It is sent to the morgue and from there the family decides how the body should be buried or cremated based on...
I understood the reasoning to writing this article and the effect it would have on any person who is affected by their emotions. The article’s major topic it’s arguing is the right to have the choice of assisted suicide. In this article, there are many points they hit and discuss pertaining to political and cultural points. The political points discussed in the article are the Acts in California they want to put into place on allowing assisted suicide by physicians. They briefly discuss the legal documents and the proper process when termination is requested. The cultural points the article talk about is the way people are living and judging how this shouldn’t be done and it’s against the moral standings of human
James Rachels believes that active and passive euthanasia are not morally different from each other (Timmons, 2007, p.346). He uses the cases of Smith and Jones to argue against those that believe active euthanasia, the act killing someone, is morally worse than passive euthanasia, the act of letting some one die (Timmons, 2007, p.347). In the case of Smith and Jones, both of the men will acquire a large inheritance if anything were to happen to their six-year-cousins (Timmons, 2007, p.347-348). One night Smith and Jones both sneak into the bathroom while the child is in the bath, with the intention of killing him (Timmons, 2007, p.348). Smith walks into the bathroom and drowns the child, on the other hand, when Jones walks in he sees the child fall, hit his head, and drown, while he does nothing but watch (Timmons, 2007, p.348). In both of these cases the men set out to kill their cousin, the only difference being that Smith did in fact kill his cousin but Jones let him die (Timmons, 2007, p.348). Rachel concludes that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, as in this case both Smith and Jones had set out with the intention of killing their cousin (Timmons, 2007, p.348).
“When a patient says, ‘Help me doctor,’ he is assuming that his doctor is on the side of his life.” This quote by Dr.Margaret Cottle , who is a palliative care physician , shows the mentality that most patients have when it comes to patient care. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been debated on throughout the years. Whether it may be active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, indirect or physician assisted the morals and reasoning behind each are controversial. Though some people may believe euthanasia may be justified in a critical situation and critical punishment, euthanasia should be prohibited because euthanasia weakens societies respects for the sanctity of life, euthanasia might not be in the person’s best interest, and euthanasia affects other peoples rights, not just the patients.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
When I was younger I know that there was a specific reason that I chose to not be a donor even a donor of blood. I felt as though if I was to give some part of myself to another person the idea that the person might turn into a clone. The thought of having another “Raymond” out in the world terrified me. I assumed whoever would receive my blood would one day wake up to realize that they were no longer who they set out to be, but rather the transfusion have made them into someone unrecognizable.
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
A recent survey by the Canadian Medical Association discovered that “ . . . 44 per cent of doctors would refuse a request for physician-assisted dying . . . ” (Kirkey 2). Euthanasia is defined as assisting a terminally ill patient with dying early. In many countries the legalization of this practice is being debated in many countries. All doctors against assisted suicide, including the 44 percent in Canada, are on the right side of the argument. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unnatural, it violates the Hippocratic Oath, and laws are to extensive.
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.
Advances in modern medical technology have served to deny people the right to die, and euthanasia, it may be argued, has emerged with the purpose of reclaiming that right. Euthanasia, which is defined as “granting painless death to a hopelessly ill patient with a non-curable disease,” is a very controversial issue (Russell 3). Illegal in all countries, except the Nertherlands, it is still practiced all over the world in an attempt to give people the right to a painless, and natural, death (Emanuel 1). In short, the advances in modern medicine and its techniques, have created a situation whereby people’s lives are artificially extended, despite the fact that they could be in an irrecoverable coma or suffering from an incurable chronic illness, leading increasing numbers of people to support euthanasia, as an option for a humane and dignified death.
What exactly is Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide? Euthanasia is the practice of ending a human being’s life with the support of a physician or other third party in response to an untreatable patient suffering from severe pain and exhaustion over a course of time. Euthanasia is sometimes known as, mercy killing or assisted suicide. However, there are many classifications of Euthanasia and it has been legal in five states of the U.S, as of 2017; Washington, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Vermont, and California. It has also been legalized in Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Japan and Columbia have too, legalized this practice, but under strict and defined circumstances. Although physician-assisted suicide seems like the definitive answer for patients that are heavily suffering from terminal illnesses, it is morally wrong and ethically erroneous. The topic of Euthanasia has always been a controversial one because it holds both, moral as well as ethical claims. So, in other words, should Euthanasia be legalized? Should people have the option to end their lives and basically play God? This essay will focus on the claims against Euthanasia and
Euthanasia, is a difficult complex issue in society today. It has been heavily criticized since it was proposed to be legalized in the early 20th century, when it became a choice for terminally ill patients. Patients would flood doctors doors for this treatment to end suffering. This names the question, why is euthanasia illegal? Why should the government have the right to control one 's life in a way to suffer longer than one has too. Or as Thomas Craft says “How can it be lawful to allow a patient die slowly, though painlessly, over a period of weeks from lack of food, but unlawful to produce his immediate death a lethal injection, thereby saving his family yet by another ordeal to add to the tragedy that has already struck them?”(Craft
An innumerable amount of individuals believe that life is a beautiful, extraordinary, and overall amazing gift. So, why would a human being choose to have this remarkable gift taken away from him or her? The answer to this question is quite simple. All over the world people are in such immense pain and suffering, that their last wish is for their lives to be taken away in a peaceful approach. The solution to a painless death is euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as PAS. Active euthanasia is the process of inducing death upon a human being in a harmless, painless, and gentle way by an injection. Passive euthanasia is the removal of life-support or stopping treatments that may keep the patient alive for longer (Gale). Both forms of Euthanasia are done only with the consent of the patient who wishes to bring their life to an end. Death is the last chance of peace for many people, and euthanasia makes this possible.