The film, Never Let Me Go, by Mark Romanek interrogates a possible alternate history for the world and is a commentary on the human condition. Wrapped within these ideas is the fact that it is also a commentary on the philosophy of science. What Romanek does is propose questions, and after enough pondering by the viewers they eventually realize that the world today could conceivably be like the one in the film. This is because our history is not too far off from that of the film. This fact that this is true reminds us that what we are watching is not fantasy or a “what if” question. We have tread this path before. This movie has various attributes that show what the powers that have been, and the powers that be, have used to subjugate people and how the veil has been pulled over the common man’s eyes. The starting question to discover the movie’s message is, what kind of society must this be if certain lives, those of “Donors”, are worth less than human lives? This question is haunting, and not too soon after this question had entered my thoughts did I realize that scarier things have happened in history, and perhaps they are only a couple of decisions away. That horrible things have happened in history is shocking to the conscience. Is organ harvesting anything really different considering the very real and comparably worse history of eugenics? Is it morally defensible?
The world of Never Let Me Go kind of world isn’t so far off. The use of an ethical issue such as forced organ harvesting sheds light on our actual transgressions. It makes you wonder about how if things like the Holocaust had not happened, and anti-Semitism had continued, at what level would dehumanizing others not be acceptable? Mankind has experienced some appa...
... middle of paper ...
...eil has been pulled over our eyes since we started getting indoctrinated in our institutions that support systemized oppression. When discussing these issues of science and history, people will most likely not believe you, or may even mock you, on the objectivity of science or for knowing matters pertaining the darker history of nations that is not in high school history books. Never Let Me Go was an alternate history, but not too much. The fact that Never Let Me Go is not a future dystopia but a past one demonstrates that we do not have to make poor choices to arrive to a bleak future that amounts to an entertaining existential threat, but that we have gone there in a different way. The influence of human rights upon global affairs is great because more people and governments are not disposed to endure silently over systematic exploitation that we have in the past.
Memories are symbols that are used to demonstrate the progression from the past into the development of one’s current personal identity. We often use our personal memories to investigate our thoughts. Native Guard by Natasha Trethewey and Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro are 21st century works that reflect on the use of memoires to enhance personal thoughts to impact perspectives. Perspectives are created and altered by addressing and reflecting on thoughts and feelings towards previous events. In Native Guard, Trethewey uses her memories to develop a perspective on her past and history. In Never Let Me Go, Ishiguro uses Kathy’s memories to develop her actions and decisions. Tretheway and Ishiguro both demonstrate that a memory is a symbol
Chaim Shapiro was born in Lomza, Poland. On September 1st, 1939, the Germans invade Poland, quickly annihilating many of the people, including his younger brother Nosson. Soon after the Soviet Union signs a treaty the Germans, giving over Poland to them. Out of fear that he would lose his religion under atheist communist rulership, his mother pleads with him to leave, saying the fateful words “Go My Son.” He leaves war-torn Poland for Vilna, Lithuania, joining with the rest of the Kamenetz Yeshiva. Because of the frequent casualties of war people were forced to move from place to place for safety, because of which he eventually finds himself alone on a train bound Moscow, deep within the Soviet Union. Upon arrival he is sent to work repairing tractors in a small backward village called Karobka, in the Booyan region.
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern
What is the difference between effective or ineffective communication skills when working with children, this essay is determine to find out the appropriate ways to communicate with children by analyse, the video clip ‘Unloved’ by Tony Grison, where a young White British girl aged 11 was taken into care, due to her father being abusive towards her and mother not wanting to see her.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
Oppression is the systematic method of prolonged cruelty and unjust treatment, often intended for those who are deemed “different” by a hierarchical society. It’s a basis that can be found in the plot of a fictional movie or novel, but most importantly, it’s an aspect of both past and modern life that has affected multiple nations. Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, is a humanitarian who embodies the personal experiences of what being oppressed feels like – how it itches at one’s skin like the hatred and stares directed at them. The reason he is so important is because of his stories; what he has seen. The insight and intelligence he has brought forth further educates those who had previously accepted the world with their eyes closed.
`Fly Away Peter' by David Malouf is a powerful war story in which the author has used contrasting settings and strong symbolism to clearly portray his own ideas and opinions of war, and further the readers understanding of the text.
The movie Gattaca and the novel Never Let Me Go, both display a form of dehumanization and the relationship between those who have been dehumanized and those who are brought up in a more ‘ideal’ way. Gattaca and Never Let Me Go, try and show an alternative future based on the advancement of genetics and how they affect our world in a possible future. They do this by genetically cloning individuals for organ harvesting and attempting to create a perfect world by creating “perfect” humans.
For generations, the concept of human cloning has been cloaked by a theme of ethical atrocities. For example, in the novel Never Let Me Go, the author, Kazuo Ishiguro, explores the application of human cloning for medical purposes. Within this dystopian setting, human cloning has eradicated most lethal diseases and has extended the human life expectancy well beyond one hundred years. But, the problem lies within how these successes are achieved. The protagonists are clones of specific people and serve the purpose of donating organs when the original person needs them. This creates an ethical dilemma in which the value of human life is compromised. However, this is an exaggerated scenario of one form of human cloning and fails to properly represent the concept. Human cloning is the process of creating an offspring from the DNA of a patient. The DNA is inserted into an unfertilized egg of a woman creating an
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.