Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Four ethical principles in medical ethics
Utilitarianism in criminal justice
Utilitarianism for and against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Four ethical principles in medical ethics
Ethics is a systematic approach using linear logic to determine what is considered “right” and what is considered “wrong” pertaining to a particular situation or scenario. In addition to considering what is right and wrong, the rights of society as a whole and the rights of the individual are also taken into account when making an ethical decision. Ethics can be thought of as the rules and guidelines that are used as a rubric to protect people from what may be potentially harmful to them. Morals are personal, they describe what an individual perceives as right and wrong, the differences in morals and ethics often lead to opposing outlooks and interpretations in certain circumstances. Many styles of thought have developed while attempting to define what is ethical.
A common style of ethics is utilitarianism. The basis of this kind of thought process is that something can be defined as right or wrong by analyzing the consequences. The act itself is not taken into consideration as heavily as the results of the action (Thompson 2007). Utilitarian ethics is only clearly applicable to a very narrow range of situations; the ex post facto nature of this style limits the extent of how often the ends actually justify the means. An example of a utilitarian situation would be: if given the option, a single person from a group dying is better than the entire group of people dying (Tobler et al 2008). This would be a situation that involves the least harm or greatest amount of happiness or goodness. The postulate becomes more complicated if the single person is not a part of the original group of condemned people. This illustrates how the utilitarian approach seems to be an inclusive straight forward way to make ethical decisions. But, on clos...
... middle of paper ...
...e situation is taken into consideration rather than just the act or consequence alone.
Works Cited
Howe E (2009). Treatment initiatives for patients with Alzheimer's disease. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 6: 40-47.
Serrano-Delgado V, Novello-Garza B, Valdez-Martinez E (2009). Ethical issues relating the the banking of umbilical cord blood in Mexico Biomed Central 10: 12.
Thompson D (2007). Principles of ethics: in managing a critical care unit. Crit Care Med 35: S2-10.
Tobler P, Kalis A, Kalenscher T (2008). The role of moral utility in decision making: an interdisciplinary framework. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 8: 390-401.
Visser A, Dijkstra G, Kuiper D, Jong P, Franssen C, Gansevoort R, Izaks G, Jager K, Reijneveld (2009). Accepting or declining dialysis: considerations taken into account by elderly patients with end-stage renal disease. JNephronl 6: 794-799.
rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was made by the court due to the need that presented itself. The intension was to ensure that the 4th Amendment is kept and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy, and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. Nevertheless, most them do not comprehend how the Exclusionary Rule which ensures this right is guarded. The Exclusionary Rule is intended to refrain the police from
The hearsay rule is a rule that applies in court when a statement is made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (legal-dictionary.com n.d.). Unfortunately, when this evidence is brought to court it is up to the judge and jury to determine whether the evidence offered as proof is credible. Therefore, the person that is testifying has to prove to the judge and jury that they in fact saw what happen or that they actually know what happen. Furthermore
Woolmington v DPP , it was stated in the judgment of Lord Sankey that; “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to….. the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception”. From the Judgment of Lord Sankey, the following circumstances where the accused bears the legal burden of proof in criminal cases were established; where the accused pleads the defence of insanity
Bingham in Sheldrake v DPP, presumption of innocence is acknowledged as one of the most fundamental principle to this legitimacy. It states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution bears the burden to prove defendant’s guilt by presenting evidence and proving all the elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the tribunal of fact to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If the defendant raise a defence such as provocation,
trials. The aim is to maintain an efficient and effective justice system in which a clear and comprehensive laws of evidence play a fundamental role Introduction The law of Evidence in Australia is a mixture of statute and common-law together with rules of the court. Based on the complex role documentary evidence plays in criminal trials there is the need to examine the process of gathering
Justice McLachlin states the plaintiff must prove Mr. Scalera intended his actions to be of direct contact and to be “harmful or offensive to constitute a battery”. Due to the intentional infliction of unlawful force committed by Mr. Scalera. The general rule in a battery case is that the victim must prove direct contact and Mr. Scalera would have to prove consent or thought she consented, as a defence for battery. Therefore, the victim must show harm by proving a lack of consent of the battery
into explaining the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, let’s get a better understanding on what the exclusionary rule is. The Exclusionary Rule is meant to deter any illegal police conduct and to not be punished for any errors that are made during the process of doing their work. It’s also stated that the exclusionary rule also bars the admission of any evidence obtained by the government which is in violation of the constitution (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Such rule mostly involves cases
The Exclusionary Rule made its first appearance in the judicial system when it was put there by the Supreme Court thanks to Weeks v. United States. At first the Exclusionary Rule was only used in federal cases, only after fifty years of being adopted by the Supreme Court was it used in state cases as well. Before Weeks v. United States, any and all evidence that was acquired illegally or that violated the peoples constitutional rights was still used, if it was practical to the circumstance. The definition
of the United States Constitution. Over the years, the United States Court has made exceptions to these requirements, which essentially allow the police to search certain types of property without a warrant and infuriating a lot of citizens. One of the big conflicts that citizens and officers are facing is case of Cellphones and smart phones, until now, the Court had not addressed whether this fit into an exceptions. I strongly believe that the rights of citizens should be preserved and a warrant
List and explain five exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Collateral use, is illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all no trial, Cross examination, the prosecution can use illegally obtained evidence to impeach defense, Attenuation of the taint of unconstitutional conduct, states that tainted evidence, Inevitable discovery is tainted evidence admissible if police law breaking produced the evidence and finally, good faith exception. Where State agents acting in good faith
An agent was defined by L. Alverstone in The Queen v Kane as ‘any person who happens to act on behalf of another’. In the situation between Chris and Ken the agency was created by an express oral agreement between the principal and an agent. K was authorised to act on C’s behalf to find out the best price obtainable for a bag of gemstones. C limited K’s authority with no authorisation given for the actual sale of chattels. If an agent acts outside his actual authority, he may be liable to his principle
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL SUITS 3.1. IN INDIAN LAW 3.1.1. Section 53 states that in criminal cases previous good character relevant The fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant in criminal proceedings. The accused is allowed to prove his good character, either- examination in chief or by cross-examination. But so far as concerns proof of the good character of accused by another witness, what must be shown is, not particular good acts by him, but his reputation in the community
Part III deals with the split among courts as to whether this rule can apply in quasi-criminal cases. Part IV of this paper concludes that courts should resolve this split and refrain from treating civil parties in quasi-criminal cases as criminal defendants because the risk of prejudice does not support this use of the Federal Rules of Evidence. II. The Inadmissibility of Character Evidence A. Before the Federal Rules Federal Rule of Evidence 404 deals with the admissibility of character evidence
Thompson v. Church, one of the earliest authorities regarding inadmissibility of character evidence in trials, proposed the principle ““The business of the court is to try the case, and not the man”. Though principally true, the question of admissibility of evidence is nevertheless filled with complexities that have led scholars and academicians to call it one of the most controversial areas in the law of evidence. Under Common Law, ‘character’ has traditionally referred to “a person’s reputation
and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.” A minor is a person below the age of majority. Under the Age of Majority Act 1971, the age of majority is 18. With regards to the minor’s contractual capacity, the general rule is that all contracts