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.
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
At first, I believed that a patient should have the say so and get what they demand. I didn’t feel sympathetic for the health care provider one bit. I was able to look through the eyes of a physician and see the trials that they have to go through. It is not easy making the decisions that they have to make. There job is based on decisions, and most of it is the patient’s. “There will certainly be times when I will be faced with a request from a patient or patient’s representative that I will personally find morally difficult, but one that is still legally and ethically acceptable. must be very difficult to work in an area with little control over what you want to do.” (Bradley 1). Even though I do not fully understand a health care providers everyday role, I do know that they are faced with painful options. I personally feel that I can not work in this field for that exact reason. Health care providers play an extremely important role in our society, and others need to look upon
In the words of Jack Kevorkian “In quixotically trying to conquer death doctors all too frequently do no good for their patients’ “ease” but at the same time they do harm instead by prolonging and even magnifying patients’ dis-ease.”. His excellent quote shows one that mercy killing can help a person stop suffering with a prolonged death.In Stienbecks novella Of Mice And Men Lennie falls victim to his impulses and makes himself suffer and George suffer the concequences. George reveals how mercy killing is necessary in some cases because it stops suffering, prevents worse from happening, and may help society continue working.
This is clear evidence that war is really tough and soldiers experience a lot when fighting out there. There is a lot of psychological torture which these soldiers experience. They place their lives on the line just to fight for their nation and people. Junger recounts an experience where soldiers have to expose themselves just to save injured comrades. This is indeed a courageous act considering the fact that there are gun shots all over and any minute a bullet can land on anyone. It is indeed the highest risk that could ever be taken. For those who survive, it is simply luck. Junger notes that the soldiers look out for each other (Junger 56). The soldiers have a very strong connection with each other and it is common to hear some admitting that they could die if their comrade gets killed. J...
Henson, Cary “Medical ethics and nazi legacy” Jonathan Mann, Volume 8, Page 332-358 January 1, 1993
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
willingness to harm the lives of millions of people, why is it not justified, to inflict pain on
In order to assess the morality of torture, one needs to define it. According to the Tokyo Declaration of 1975 torture is “the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason.” This definition’s generality severely limits harmless interrogations by police. The United Nations changed the definition to include severe physical suffering, deliberate intentions, and also added that the action cannot be part of a lawful sanction. The US later revised the definition “to include only the most extreme pain” in 200...
In order for a military to execute its function, every platform of the chain of command must expect and demand obedience to commands (Montrose, 2013), because if this does not happen many lives can be at stake. A simply failure to comply with the orders given can not only jeopardize the lives of the soldiers, it can compromise the safety of all military personnel involved, even in the matter of national security. Utilitarianism has a core theory that some actions may be considered right or wrong relying on the effects of the outcomes. This theory is mostly what could be applied this situation of the detainees in the military prisons. During this time, national security was weak, the country was being attacked and threatened, and thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives. The military could was only looking out for the interest of the country and many interrogation techniques were used to get information that could lead the capture of Al-Qaeda leaders. Soldiers are sent to warzones without the ability to deny their own obligation to war, just because they believe it to be morally wrong. They are sent and receive orders under the assumption the government has all the information needed to make the best decision for the country. According to the periodical, Unjust War and a Soldier’s Moral Dilemma, individual soldiers who have
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.
...viewed as a healthy relationship. For those doctors who believe in the death penalty, there should be no sanctions for participating in a legal procedure, which they are doing for the best interests of society, and in the name of justice.
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.
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
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).