Many Americans assume that medical professionals are generally helpful of others. However, a controversial question has been raised about the use of medical professionals and their involvement with torturing enemy combatants during war. Is it morally right or morally wrong for them to be involved in these sorts of practices? I believe that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are morally praiseworthy. Medical professionals are praiseworthy because its undoubtedly correct for a medical professional to help preserve the life of tortured. Furthermore, medical professionals are praiseworthy because their job description demands that they assist injured people. Lastly, I emphasize that medical professionals are correct by performing these practices because it makes the doctors patriotic. I also will address a few opposing viewpoints within my points expressed and relate back to how my points outweigh the opposition. My first point illustrates the aspects of medical professionals who are preserving the life of enemy combatants. I undoubtedly claim that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are praiseworthy because they preserve the life of the one who was being tortured. An opposing view could assert that the medical professional shouldn’t be present to preserve the life of the enemy combatant because it’s morally wrong to help the enemy. I would respond to their claim by reminding them that life itself is precious and should be preserved, for a person shouldn’t do another person wrong if they have done wrong to them. Another way to approach this is to state that by treating the enemy well, they may have a change of heart. ... ... middle of paper ... ...et major results. If you absolutely have to torture someone for the sake of helping a whole country, then I think it’s morally right. Saving life is patriot within its self, and saving life for your country would make the medical professional very patriotic. In conclusion, I take a firm stance that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are morally praiseworthy. Medical professionals are morally praise worthy because they are preserving the life of the tortured, they are fulfilling there job description, and the act would make them patriot. Medical professionals are important aspects in life and should be used when needed in any situation. These types of people are praiseworthy within themselves and if they follow through with there jobs makes them morally praiseworthy when they are helping an enemy combatant.
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
It’s hard for civilians to see what veterans had to face and still do even after all is said and done. The rhetorical strategies that contribute to Grady’s success in this article is appealing to the reader’s emotions through the story of Jason Poole. Denise Grady’s “Struggling Back From War’s Once Deadly Wounds” acts as an admonition for the American public and government to find a better way to assist troops to land on their feet post-war. Grady informs the reader on the recent problems risen through advancements in medical technology and how it affected the futures of all the troops sent into the Iraq war.
The story of Jason Poole as presented by Grady is a clear picture of the ravage of the potentials of soldiers in the face of war, and the wrong priorities of the American government in spending billions of dollars for the war that have no clear advantage for them or the American people, that is worth dying for. The sending of potential young men and women in Iraq to sustain its war lacked the basic objective that warrant their sacrifices, as well as the billions of dollars spend in pursuing such unclear purpose that is wrongly labeled “war on terror.” As per records, American fatalities in Iraq as of January 20 stood at two thousand two hundred twenty five (2, 225), while casualties numbered at 16, 472 (The New York Times, par. 8). Grady cited that medical treatments for brain injuries in Iraq alone would cost fourteen billion dollars.
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
In Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values, Peter Singer examines ethical dilemmas that confront us in the twentieth century by identifying inconsistencies between the theory and practice of ethics in medicine. With advancements in medical technology, we focus on the quality of patients’ lives. Singer believes that in this process, we have acknowledged a new set of values that conflicts with the doctrine of the sanctity of life.
Reich, Warren T. “The Care-Based Ethic of Nazi Medicine and the Moral Importance of What We Care About”. American Journal of Bioethics 1.1 (2001): 64-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
The question has been raised whether it is moral for a physician to participate in the administration of the death penalty. This is an issue that many professionals in the field have strong opinions about, regardless of their own personal beliefs about the death penalty in general. Physicians are traditionally practitioners of the healing arts; is using this knowledge to put someone to death a corruption of their professional ethics? In order to fully understand the issues surrounding physician participation in the death penalty, it is necessary to explore three main areas of analysis. First, we must survey the ethical justification for the death penalty. If the death penalty itself is morally unjustified, then physician participation in it is, by definition, wrong. Secondly, justification of the death penalty aside, do condemned criminals retain a right to health that the death penalty would violate? Finally, we will examine the special duties of the physician - even if the death penalty in general is justified, is there perhaps a subtler breach of ethical duties by inviting physician participation in the process?
The topic that covers this essay:: is it morally permissible to torture an innocent child to stop a nuclear threat. I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible to torture an innocent child by arguing, first, that by torturing a child one can save millions of lives, and secondly that if we torture the child we will be just harming him, not killing him. First I will depict the three approaches to morality presented in this course (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Kant’s). Then I’ll present my own stand and try to support my reasoning with the three moral approaches if possible. Then I’ll continue with a counter argument followed by a conclusion.
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
Under what circumstances do we decide whether it is just to save another human being’s life? Health professionals that question the standards of the brokers fuel the ethical debate.
...remove food and water tubes, or other life support machines, but not to "intentionally cause the death of a patient" (Hentoff, 1987). If a position must be veiled and sugar-coated to gain followers, what does that say about the argument? We cannot afford to let flowery words detach the medical profession from its fundamental dedication to preserving life.
Mohr, M., & Kettler, D. (1997). Ethical aspects of resuscitation. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 253.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
It is a big question that most people often struggle with to decide when it is consider appropriate to assist an individual with mercy killing. In 1993, Robert Latimer a Saskatchewan farmer took the life of his twelve-year old daughter Tracy in an act of mercy killing. Latimer’s daughter suffered from the most dreadful form of cerebral palsy. She was severely disabled and had a mind of a four month old baby. Tracy was confined to a wheelchair and had endured multiple operations. She couldn’t walk, talk, or feed herself and she was in constant pain. After Robert Latimer learned that his daughter needed to go through another round of surgery, he knew he had to do something to save her from going through more pain. Therefore, Mr. Latimer decided