Euthanasia is Inherently Wrong My impression is that the idea of euthanasia, if not the practice, is gradually gaining acceptance within our society. People like Jack Kevorkian attribute this to an increasing inclination to devalue human life, but I do not believe that this is the major factor. The acceptance of euthanasia is much more likely to be the result of unthinking sympathy and benevolence. It is an easy step from this very human response to the view that if someone would be better off dead, then it must be right to kill that person. Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe that this conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong. It is inherently wrong, but it is also wrongly judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical effects. Before presenting my arguments, it would be well to define "euthanasia". An essential aspect of euthanasia is that it involve taking a human life. Also, the person whose life is taken must be someone who is believed to be suffering from an incurable disease or injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be expected. Finally the action must be deliberate and intentional. Therefore euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. It is important to be clear about the deliberate and intentional aspect of the killing. If a hopeless person is given an injection of the wrong drug by mistake and this causes his/her death, this is wrongful killing but not euthanasia. The killing cannot be the result of an accident. In addition, if the person is given an injection of a drug that is believed to be necessary to treat their disease or better their condition and the person dies as a result, then this is neither wrongful killing nor euthanasia. The intention was to make the patient well, not kill them. Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Our reflexes and responses fit us to fight attackers, flee wild animals, and dodge out of the way of trucks. In our daily lives we exercise caution and care necessary to protect ourselves. Our bodies are similarly structured for survival right down to the molecular level. When we are cut, our capillaries seal shut, our blood clots, and fibrogen is produced to start the process of healing the wound. When we are invaded by bacteria, antibodies are produced to fight against the alien organism, and their remains are swept out of the body by special cells designed for clean-up work. It is enough I believe to recognize that the organization of the human body and our patterns of behavioral response make the continuation of life a natural goal. By reason alone, then, we can recognize that euthanasia sets us against our own nature. In addition euthanasia does damage to our dignity. Our dignity comes from seeking our ends. When one of our goals is survival, and actions are taken that eliminate that goal, then our natural dignity suffers. Therefore, euthanasia denies our basic human character and requires that we regard ourselves or others as something less than fully human. The above arguments are, I believe, sufficient to show that euthanasia is inherently wrong. But there are reasons for considering it wrong when judged by standards other than reason. Because death is final and irreversible, euthanasia contains within it the possibility that we will work against our own interest if we practice it or allow it to be practiced on us. Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and has a proven record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and complete knowledge. A mistaken diagnosis is possible, and so is a mistaken prognosis. Consequently, we may believe that we are dying of a disease when as a matter of fact, we may not be. We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact, our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted, we would die for no reason. Death is final and the chance of error is too great to approve the practice of euthanasia. There have been many cases where spontaneous remissions have occurred. For no apparent reason, a patient simply recovers when those around him/her, including physicians, expected the patient to die. Euthanasia would just guarantee their expectations and leave no room for the miraculous recoveries that frequently occur. Finally, knowing that we can take our own life's at any time (or ask another to take it) we tend to give up, and rely on euthanasia. The will to live is strong in all of us, but it can be weakened by pain and suffering and the feeling of hopelessness. If during a bad time we allow ourselves to be killed, we would never have a chance to reconsider. Recovery from a serious illness requires that we fight for it, and anything that weakens out determination by suggesting that there is an easy way out is ultimately against our own interest. Also, we may be inclined towards euthanasia because of our concern for others. If we see our sickness and suffering as an emotional and financial burden on our family, we may feel that to leave our life is to make their lives easier. Doctors and nurses, for the most part, are totally committed to saving lives. A life lost for them is almost a personal failure, an insult to their skills and knowledge. Euthanasia as a practice might alter this. It could have a corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient. They might decide that the patient would simply be "better off dead" and that the steps necessary to help that person would not be carried out. This attitude could then carry over to their dealing with patients less seriously ill. The result would be an overall decline in the quality of medical care. I hope that I have succeeded in showing why the good will that inclines us to give approval of euthanasia is mislaid. Euthanasia is inherently wrong because it violated the nature and dignity of human beings. But even those who are not convinced by this must be persuaded that the potential personal and social dangers inherent in euthanasia are sufficient to forbid our approving it as a personal practice. Suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a clear duty to comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when we can. But suffering is also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that we should not overlook. We may legitimately seek for others and for ourselves and pain-less death. Euthanasia, however, is not just an easeful death. It is a wrongful death. Euthanasia is not just dying. It is killing.
The belief here is if there is good will in everyone and that this good will can p...
long as we are human facing the dilemma of not wanting to die but knowing
This is the inevitable truth which some contemplate every day. Death for many is something they
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
Our values, opinions and beliefs depend on what culture, religion and the society we come from. People who are against view euthanasia as murder and that we must respect the value of life. Those who are in favor of euthanasia believe that doing such act eliminates the patient’s pain and suffering. Also, the right to die allows the person to die with dignity. Euthanasia may involve taking a human’s life, but not all forms of killing are wrong nor consider as murder. It depends on the underlying reasons and intentions. If you value a person’s life and the cause of death is for the patient’s benefit and not one’s personal interest, then euthanasia is permissible.
Lock, Simon. “Rewiring Fashion Week” The Business of Fashion. N.P., 27 September 2013. Web. 21 October 2013
For the past several decades, globalization has been a hot topic and it also anticipates every aspect of the world to connect each other. Likewise, globalization also allows consumers to have more access to catch up with updated fashion. The advantages of globalization bring a new philosophy called fast fashion, which holds quick response time and enhanced design in fashion apparel industry. In this paper, I will deliver By exploring all the aspects of each system, I will conclude the reason why fast fashion becomes the mainstream of the fashion apparel industry, and use one particular brand, Zara, as an example to discover the impact on consumer behavior in detail. Finally I will make some comments on the future of fast fashion and what luxury brands will react to this circumstance……..
The general economic environment: Current levels of interest and exchange rates as well as levels of investor confidence generally will have a major influence on the value of businesses and will therefore also affect the amount of goodwill attached to a business at any one time.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?
To begin with, the definition of marketing has different explanation for different individuals so it is highly controversial (Kotler et al., 1983). The Marketing Association of Australia and New Zealand (2005) also states that there are diverse description of marketing and the concept of marketing is different from earlier time which is more restricted to present time which is boarder. However, it is comment that although in the different time period the concepts of marketing is different, the key points such as understand customer wants and needs will always expected rel...
attempts to accomplish is to allow a person to die with peace and dignity. In
Previously, marketing purely meant exchanging of goods, selling of the product. In today's world its major focus is on making a customer feel better when he has made a choice of purchasing the product.
One bad consequence that some anticipate is that active euthanasia would weaken society's commitment to providing optimal care for dying patients. Today, our health care system is largely focused on medical costs and if patients are able to afford it or not. “Euthanasia is…a very cheap service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare and the few hours in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills incurred by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives” (Potts 81). If euthanasia appears to be a cheaper method than providing hospice care would this potentially have a negative effect on how patients who do not chose euthanasia are treated? This is an answer we do not know for certain but it should not be disregarded. Additionally, legalizing euthanasia would also diminish all hope. Most people have heard of a miracle story about a patient who had a limited amount of time left to live and made a shocking recovery. These doctors who made the prognosis of patients whom have made a shocking recovery against all odds “... [experience] the wonderful embarrassment of being proven wrong in his or her pessimistic prognosis. To make euthanasia a legitimate option as soon as the prognosis is pessimistic enough is to reduce the probability of such extraordinary recoveries from low to zero” (Potts 79).
we are afraid of death. We don't want to believe it that we try to
The Fashion Industry can be described as a glamorous world with cameras flashing, beautiful models strutting down the runway, in stunning and grand designs. What really goes on behind fashion’s dolled up doors is only an illusion compared to what reality is. Beautiful people, stylish clothing and timeless sophistication all make up the illusion of the glitz and glam of the fashion industry, but behind the curtains countless of models and designers constantly fall victim to this industry’s ever changing wrath. Fashion can be defined as a popular trend especially in styles of dress, ornaments or behavior. A model is a person who poses or displays art purposes, fashion or other products and advertising. Fashion models are used mainly to promote products focusing mostly on clothing and accessory. The two main type of modeling in the fashion industry is commercial modeling and high fashion modeling. High Fashion models usually work for campaigns, designer’s collections and magazine editorials for high fashion designers. Runway modeling also known as “catwalk modeling” is displaying fashion and is generally performed by high fashion models. In my research paper my main focus will be the effects of high fashion models based upon the industry’s unregulated standards.