Many Americans assume that medical professionals are generally helpful of others. However, a controversial question has been raised about the use of medical professionals and their involvement with torturing enemy combatants during war. Is it morally right or morally wrong for them to be involved in these sorts of practices? I believe that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are morally praiseworthy. Medical professionals are praiseworthy because its undoubtedly correct for a medical professional to help preserve the life of tortured. Furthermore, medical professionals are praiseworthy because their job description demands that they assist injured people. Lastly, I emphasize that medical professionals are correct by performing these practices because it makes the doctors patriotic. I also will address a few opposing viewpoints within my points expressed and relate back to how my points outweigh the opposition. My first point illustrates the aspects of medical professionals who are preserving the life of enemy combatants. I undoubtedly claim that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are praiseworthy because they preserve the life of the one who was being tortured. An opposing view could assert that the medical professional shouldn’t be present to preserve the life of the enemy combatant because it’s morally wrong to help the enemy. I would respond to their claim by reminding them that life itself is precious and should be preserved, for a person shouldn’t do another person wrong if they have done wrong to them. Another way to approach this is to state that by treating the enemy well, they may have a change of heart. ... ... middle of paper ... ...et major results. If you absolutely have to torture someone for the sake of helping a whole country, then I think it’s morally right. Saving life is patriot within its self, and saving life for your country would make the medical professional very patriotic. In conclusion, I take a firm stance that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are morally praiseworthy. Medical professionals are morally praise worthy because they are preserving the life of the tortured, they are fulfilling there job description, and the act would make them patriot. Medical professionals are important aspects in life and should be used when needed in any situation. These types of people are praiseworthy within themselves and if they follow through with there jobs makes them morally praiseworthy when they are helping an enemy combatant.
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
For anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, or simply for someone who has watched a popular hit television show such as Grey’s Anatomy, General Hospital, House or ER know that there can be times when a doctor or health care provider is placed in extremely difficult situations. Often times, those situations are something that we watch from the sidelines and hope for the best in the patient’s interest. However, what happens when you place yourself inside the doctors, nurses, or any other of the medical provider’s shoes? What if you were placed in charge of a patient who had an ethically challenging situation? What you would you do then? That is precisely what Lisa Belkin accomplishes in her book “First Do No Harm”. Belkin takes the reader on
It’s hard for civilians to see what veterans had to face and still do even after all is said and done. The rhetorical strategies that contribute to Grady’s success in this article is appealing to the reader’s emotions through the story of Jason Poole. Denise Grady’s “Struggling Back From War’s Once Deadly Wounds” acts as an admonition for the American public and government to find a better way to assist troops to land on their feet post-war. Grady informs the reader on the recent problems risen through advancements in medical technology and how it affected the futures of all the troops sent into the Iraq war.
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
An Imperfect Offering is a powerful personal memoir from a James Orbinski, a Canadian who has spent most of his adult life in front-line humanitarian work in the world's worst conflict zones. Despite its dark chapters, it is also a hopeful story about the emergence of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) as a new and independent agent of civil society, and the possibilities of making the world a better place. In “An Imperfect Offering”, James Orbinski tells the story of people who have been harmed by war, and humanitarian workers who have come to heal them when possible. He engages in deep reflection on the nature of humanitarian response and the many threats to this most human activity. He has sharp criticism for governments who act to cause suffering or to prevent its relief. He asks, “How am I able to be in relation to the suffering of others?” His life as a doctor, and a humanitarian worker illustrates this answer. Accordingly, the books main thesis is that humanitarianism is about the struggle to create space to be fully human. However, he illustrates how this struggle is becoming increasingly difficult with the imperfect offering of politics, which has resulted in the blurring of boundaries between humanitarian assistance and the political objectives of military intervention.
The story of Jason Poole as presented by Grady is a clear picture of the ravage of the potentials of soldiers in the face of war, and the wrong priorities of the American government in spending billions of dollars for the war that have no clear advantage for them or the American people, that is worth dying for. The sending of potential young men and women in Iraq to sustain its war lacked the basic objective that warrant their sacrifices, as well as the billions of dollars spend in pursuing such unclear purpose that is wrongly labeled “war on terror.” As per records, American fatalities in Iraq as of January 20 stood at two thousand two hundred twenty five (2, 225), while casualties numbered at 16, 472 (The New York Times, par. 8). Grady cited that medical treatments for brain injuries in Iraq alone would cost fourteen billion dollars.
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
Mohr, M., & Kettler, D. (1997). Ethical aspects of resuscitation. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 253.
Reich, Warren T. “The Care-Based Ethic of Nazi Medicine and the Moral Importance of What We Care About”. American Journal of Bioethics 1.1 (2001): 64-74. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
The topic that covers this essay:: is it morally permissible to torture an innocent child to stop a nuclear threat. I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible to torture an innocent child by arguing, first, that by torturing a child one can save millions of lives, and secondly that if we torture the child we will be just harming him, not killing him. First I will depict the three approaches to morality presented in this course (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Kant’s). Then I’ll present my own stand and try to support my reasoning with the three moral approaches if possible. Then I’ll continue with a counter argument followed by a conclusion.
Under what circumstances do we decide whether it is just to save another human being’s life? Health professionals that question the standards of the brokers fuel the ethical debate.
It is a big question that most people often struggle with to decide when it is consider appropriate to assist an individual with mercy killing. In 1993, Robert Latimer a Saskatchewan farmer took the life of his twelve-year old daughter Tracy in an act of mercy killing. Latimer’s daughter suffered from the most dreadful form of cerebral palsy. She was severely disabled and had a mind of a four month old baby. Tracy was confined to a wheelchair and had endured multiple operations. She couldn’t walk, talk, or feed herself and she was in constant pain. After Robert Latimer learned that his daughter needed to go through another round of surgery, he knew he had to do something to save her from going through more pain. Therefore, Mr. Latimer decided