Considering the plethora of moral situations the medical field presents, there is a large intuitive appeal towards the association between philosophical ethics and medicine. The American philosophers Jonathan D. Moreno and Dan W. Brock both argue very similarly that while there is some benefit to be gained in the union of philosophy, medical practice, and policy-making, there are a variety of issues that have a strong tendency to arise. I will discuss particularly about the philosopher’s lack of credible standing in the field resulting from the obscurity of their apparent role in addition to what appears to be a disconnect between the world of academia and the hard reality of the situation. Despite these issues, there are strong indications that the application of clinical philosophy has helped us make significant progress on a variety of important topics, such as abortion and truth-telling among health professionals with their patients, by dispelling false reasoning behind the beliefs we hold and in providing a more comprehensive view of the issues at hand; and in doing so, it bring us closer to what we could consider to be the “truth”.
A variety of problems between philosophers and those involved with medical practice and policy-making result from the philosopher’s lack of credible standing in these areas. One such reason for this is that the disconnect between the academic search for “truth” and the social consequences of enforcing such “truth” in medical practice and policy undermines the philosopher’s sureness in his own correctness of action. Moreno (1991/2006) makes clear the distinction between the two, stating that the traditions of western philosophy “initially requires detachment from received wisdom and permits the phi...
... middle of paper ...
...: An Anthology (pp. 605-610). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published in 1927)
Kant, I. (2006). On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives. In Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. (Ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 603-604). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published in 1797).
Moreno, J.D. (2006). Ethics Consultation as Moral Engagement. In Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. (Ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 707-714). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published in 1991)
Thomson, J.J. (2006). A Defense of Abortion. In Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. (Ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 40-50). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published in 1971)
Tooley, M. (2006). Abortion and Infanticide. In Kuhse, H. & Singer, P. (Ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 25-39). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published in 1972)
Sarah Cullen and Margaret Klein, “Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth,” in L. Vaughn, Bioethics: 148-55
In the realm of medical ethics, there are many topics that are debated and discussed, but there is not necessarily one clear, correct answer. One of these topics is paternalism. Many questions are bandied back and forth: is it beneficial, should it be disallowed entirely, are there instances when paternalism is good and beneficial, and the list goes on. For each of these questions there have been authors who have provided their comments. One such author is Alan Goldman. He draws a very firm line on paternalism, simply put: medical paternalism is deleterious to a patient because it intrudes on their primary rights of liberty and autonomy. This paper is going to expound upon Goldman’s viewpoint in detail, going through point by point how he presents his argument. There will then be a critique of Goldman’s viewpoint that will counter his main points. The counterpoints will show Goldman’s views on paternalism are incorrect and should not be considered valid.
Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Trans. Array Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. . 2 nd.
Lee, Patrick. Abortion and Unborn Human Life. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2010.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Williams, J. (2010, Nov. 23). Wrongful life and abortion. Retrieved on January 23, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/q69145g545q13hg5/
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.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
Hinman, Lawrence. “Abortion: A Guide to the Ethical Issues.” May 13, 2010. University of San
Warren, Mary Anne , and Mappes and D. DeGrazia. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Jecker, N. (1990). Integrating medical ethics with normative theory: Patient advocacy and social responsibility. 11(2), 125-139.