Modern medicine has made leaps and bounds in the past hundred years in ways we could never imagine. Our ancestors could never imagine a life can continue on well into their 70’s and 80’s while living a normal and healthy life. Through our research and experimentation we can also sustain a life through modern machines and techniques that never existed before. However in today’s high cost of medicine and cost cutting measures, when does a life become a burden to and when do you begin to question who has a right to live and what needs to be done to give a life or to take one.
Medicine affects every aspect of our lives. From the moment of conception we begin to use medicine to better understand what is going on in our bodies and what needs to be done. Abortion has been a hot button issue from every aspect of modern society. The question of when life begins, or whether or not it is right to terminate a pregnancy for reasons of quality are some of the dilemmas we must face when dealing with such an issue. With the advent of modern techniques to determine viability and quality of the human embryo, we can now decide whether or not it is a good idea to keep your pregnancy or abort it. One of the most basic techniques used is amniocentesis where a sterile needle is inserted through abdominal wall into the amniotic sac, then a small amount of fluid is drawn and DNA is isolated. Once the fetal DNA is isolated it can be tested for a wide range of genetic abnormalities, such as maternal-fetal incompatibilities as well as other more ethically controversial factors, like the child's sex.
In many cultures, especially in China, there is a very high demand for male babies. Because of this, amniocentesis has become a very important test in Chinese ...
... middle of paper ...
...aken away because of irresponsibility. Is unintended enough of a reason to end the potential for life? Can you imagine ending so many lives for no other reason then you were just having a good time and didn’t plan for this. Does that make any sense to anyone? It certainly does not to me. That would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the Santa Clarita valley and ending everyone’s life just because you were just having a good time and you didn’t mean to press the button. I come to think maybe modern society truly lacks the vision to see past what is on the surface. In this day and age I truly believe mankind cannot dream anymore of the potential that is life, the hopes and dreams that a single life can create, and the greatness that one life can do.
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
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
Before, there were no breakthroughs with the opportunity of saving lives. Innovations in medical technology made contributions to correct abnormal heartbeats and save lives by using a defibrillator and modern respirator. Who would know that the rapid discoveries would include successfully giving patients surgical transplants? Furthermore, President Lyndon Johnson implemented an executive policy requiring the usage of medical response trauma teams. Since 1976, this executive order has allowed the widespread use of CPR, and organizations like the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association were founded. “About 6.4 million people now survive angina chest pain each year, while an additional 700,000 people survive a heart attack each year (pg. 15 of Last Rights) Despite these remarkable breakthroughs that help those badly injured, the law becomes vague and allows more opportunities for misinterpretation on defining death. As a result, this could be advantageously used against the best interest of others and the government. “This ten-year mishmash of laws is what led the previously mentioned President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by an act of Congress in 1978 , to tackle the first task of defining death.” (pg. 81). The President’s Commission forced the U.S Supreme Court and
The constantly growing field of medical technology has raised many questions especially pertaining to ethics. The mapping of the human genome, cloning technologies, stem cell research, and of course reproductive technology has caused some very real dilemmas over the role of the human decision in the creation and orientation of new life. Humans are able to accomplish amazing things in science, but at what cost? The ubiquitous nature of reproductive technology has caused a new discipline of reproductive ethics. One such dilemma is that of selective abortion due to sex preference. In this paper I will discuss the ethics of gendercide and sonography’s affect on this practice
Why should any woman be denied the choice to do what she wants with her own body? Women should have the control to decide what is best for their own body without the interference of the government’s laws. Making abortion legal can save and protect the lives of the pregnant woman and unborn fetus. The abortion procedure can help a woman’s life by saving her from financial stress, difficult responsibilities, risky health concerns, emotional disturbances and it also corresponds with the law . The procedure helps the unborn fetus by preventing an irregular health, emotional, and social development.
How would you feel if someone took away your ability to live, or not being able to have a say in whether or not you want to have a life? As a small innocent baby, in the mother’s womb, you have no choice. Thousands of babies have their life and future demolished due to abortion. Generally, abortion is such a sensitive topic, most people try not to think or even speak about it. However, abortion has been a common practice around the world at every point of history, and every society regardless of its legality. Even today, abortion is a huge controversial issue concerning woman and whether or not it should be legal. Many feel that aborting an unwanted child or more so killing an unwanted child is unlawful. Controversially, others believe a mother should have the choice to “protect” her body.
Today, abortion has become one of the greatest controversies throughout the world. The debate on whether or not abortion should become a legal option continues to dismember not only Americans, but citizens of other countries. There are people who believe abortion is a women’s civil right, and those who consider it as an immoral act. There are those who believe personhood begins at birth, and those who believe personhood begins from the moment of conception. Many contradictory statements lead to the separation of two groups: pro-choice and pro-life. While a pro-choice supports a women’s “right to privacy”, pro-life supporters are against such an action considering it murder, but why force a female to go through such a dramatic change because of a pregnancy?
As I was doing research, I came across an article by Napolitano and I found a startling statistic:
In this state, country, and all over the world, there are a number of controversial topics, and there are always going to be. These topics range from debating on whether to legalize certain drugs, gun control, the death penalty, and the list goes on. One very popular topic that involves potential life and death, and constantly gets debated about is abortion. The topic of whether or not abortion should be legal has been around for years, and it isn’t going away any time soon.
In today’s society we all try to prolong life as long as possible. Technology is finding new ways that we can stay healthier and lead productive lives longer. Governor Lamm said “we should be careful in terms of our technological miracles that we don’t impose life on people who, in fact, are suffering beyond our ability to help”(Collins,1991,p.540). That is the real issue at hand; are we in fact over stepping our boundaries by keeping people alive who are maybe beyond our help. “Machines can extend the length but not always the quality of life” (Cloud,2000,p.62). As doctors, they need to think about the well being of the patient and if any methods could really help the situation.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Abortion has been a controversial topic in the U.S ever since it became legal in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade case. Abortion is defined as the, “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” Pro-life supporters believe that abortion is unethical and argue that it is the mother’s responsibility to own up to her actions. They also argue that there is always the option of adoption, and that abortion could be very dangerous. I am pro-life and believe that the government doesn’t have the right to decide what a woman can or can’t do with her body.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
There is also a high-resolution ultrasound scanning that can detect chromosomal and physical abnormalities in the first trimester as opposed to the second trimester. A technology such as this can create many ethical problems. Mcfadyen describes the biggest problem as being informed consent. “They may believe that it will provide information only about gestational age and be unaware of the range of abnormalities that can be detected. Recent research suggests that many women are not told beforehand of the first scan’s potential to detect fetal anomalies.”
Women should have the right to decide whether or not they would like to have an abortion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines abortion as; “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” The idea of a woman’s right to have an abortion being taken away is merely incomprehensible.