Bioethics encompasses every ethical question relating and pertaining to medicine and the health of living things. Everything from pediatrics to nursing, from euthanasia to birth-pain killer, from the debate of abortion to the law of malpractice is covered by the term bioethics. Bioethics is a very broad, very extensive category of ethics. The concept of a separate set of ideas called bioethics first began in 1846. While it stayed very small, it did experience a resurgence after World War Two.
This resurgence was mostly due to the vast array of war crimes committed by the Nazi?s with such tortures as human testing and mass murders. In the 1960?s, the United States had to give death a legal definition. Because of new life support technologies such as heart-lung machines and the lack of dialysis machines, people could now be kept alive artificially. If people weren?t keeping their selves alive, were they really alive at all? Whenever a new medicine or technology is developed for use in the health care community, bioethical questions are raised and answers are demanded and debated, and hopefully answered eventually. In past months, there has been much heated debate over many issues that bioethics encompass.
The use of reproductive enhancing fertility drugs (viagra and hMG?s (human menopausal gonadotropins)) has recently been all over newspapers and television due the sudden outbreak of multiple births and cures for impotence. This new advancement in medicine has led to the questioning of the ethical issues surrounding such technologies. Some religions do not allow for such drugs to be used, and some do not believe that it is ?God?s will? to have children unless the person is naturally fertile. Many environmentalists see these new drugs as the end of humankind because of the damage that overpopulation will cause.
The debate over fertility drugs is almost as heated as the discussion over abortion. Contraceptive devices have always been a source of disagreement for people since many hundreds of years ago. Up until the 1800?s, abortion was a common practice. In the late 1800?s abortion was criminalized until 1973, when the historic Rowe versus Wade case made abortion legal practice again.
The use of such drugs as the French-developed RU-486, has been questioned by our own country?s Food and Drug Administration.
Euthanasia should not be accepted as part of the standard way of dying because it not only contradicts the most respected moral principle of ‘thou shalt not kill’, but also good medical practice. The four principles of biomedical ethics can be used as a framework to help guide moral decision-making in difficult situations including euthanasia. Arguments against the moral permissibility of euthanasia which are based on respecting autonomy and non-maleficence outweigh those related to beneficence and justice. In any case of euthanasia, careful evaluation of the interests of the various parties involved is crucial because ethical principles can be contentious at times and their meanings could be interpreted differently from theory to theory (Robison
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
Nathaniel Wu, a talented and dedicated microbiologist, should be hired for the Intercontinental Pharmaceutical Company (ICP) under certain conditions. Wu, who was diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, was seen as the ideal candidate for the employment position the IPC was offering until this inconvenience was unveiled. To offer Wu employment unconditionally is extremely risky for the medical costs and equipment damages he can bring to the company can be devastating; to deny Wu employment entirely is a violation of bioethics and discrimination, for he was already offered the job position conditionally before taking medical tests. By offering Wu employment under certain conditions, Wu can be part of the IPC and have him employment terminated as soon as his condition begins interfering with his work quality.
The word abortion brings out a variety of attitudes & perceptions amongst people. The topic is surrounded by emotion and empathy, which often creates a divide, those who view abortion as permissible and those who do not. In “Bioethics Before Birth," Tooley and Marquis provide their arguments on abortion. Their arguments share some similarities but their viewpoints and delivery set them apart. I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments.
During the last two decades there has been an increase in discoveries about reproductive technologies. These new scientific break-trough’s, for example, conceiving a child outside a mother’s uterus; brings question to religious, legal and ethical morals. The Orthodox community in particular have many concerns regarding the new developments associated with reproductive technologies. Although there are many questions, not all the answers are readily available as many of the prominent Orthodox rabbis disagree on how to answer these concerning questions.
Abortion cannot be discussed unless you know the origin of the debate. In December 13, 1971, the argument of abortion surfaced (“Roe v. wade,”). The class action suit was brought by a pregnant single woman who challenged the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life (“Roe v. wade,”). Proceeding Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in almost every State. In 1973, the courts ruled and abortion became legal again.
In the later half of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, many states adopted laws against abortion because abortions were performed in unsanitary conditions, which made the operation dangerous for women. Plus, society believed killing a possible life was immoral. However, as time progressed and morals changed, people begin to question weather or not the government had the right to interfere with peoples’ carnal matters.
Starting in the mid-1960s, some erosion of the anti-abortion laws began to take place. But these efforts have not been supported by many of the more vocal groups who are trying to do something about excess population growth; to them, compulsory birth control and compulsory sterilization are apparently more palatable than voluntary abortion.
Contrary to common beliefs, abortion has been a hot topic 200 years prior to 1972 Roe vs Wade. According to an article by Brian Young, “Life before Roe”, “the first US law against abortion, adopted by Connecticut in 1821, criminalized the administration of poison or of any "destructive substance" to induce a miscarriage…In 1840, however, Maine became the first state to pass a law that expressly protected all babies…” In 1859 The American Medical Association did their own investigation on how to protect the unborn fetus. From 1821 to January 1973 when the Supreme Court handed down the Roe vs Wade there were many laws passed and many laws amended. However, after many disagreements, laws and amended laws by 1973 abortions was the law of the land. Although an abortion was law, there was another huge organization that stirred up even more controversy, Planned Parenthood. According to an article, “Ex...
In her book Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs To Know, Rickie Solinger outlines the history of anti-abortion sentiment in the U.S. Solinger establishes that while abortion began to be criminalized in the mid 1800’s, it was not until the early 1900’s that abortion had been made fully illegal in the United States (Solinger 2015). The rhetoric advocating for the “protection of women” that Solinger describes is similar to much of the anti-choice rhetoric we see today. Solinger states “Arguments in favor of criminalization included the need to protect women from using poisonous abortifacients and from practitioners without medical credentials” (Solinger: 5). While these may seem like genuine concerns, they were not the main force driving
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Ethics refers to the values and customs of a community at a particular point in time. At present, the term ethics is guided by the moral principles that guide our everyday actions. These moral principles guide the researcher into deciding what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The foundation of medical ethics is governed by two philosophical frameworks: deontology, and utilitarianism. However, ultimately, the ethics committees need to balance the risks, and benefits for the participants and the community associated with the particular research proposal.
For years, abortion has been an extremely controversial subject. One important aspect of the controversy is whether a woman should be permitted by law to have an abortion and under what circumstances. Another is whether laws should protect the unborn. History has shown that whenever abortion had been prohibited, women still attempted and succeeded in obtaining illegal abortions. Unfortunately, they have suffered serious health reasons or died in the process.
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient?