Ethics Questions - Personal Statement Example

Ethics Questions WEEK FOUR (PART ONE) The situation that Samantha is faced with is common for most cancer and other terminal illness patients and relates to the desire for hastened death. Given the pain and suffering that she must be going through, it is natural that she would want to be relieved by application of euthanasia. However, the doctors should not grant her this wish due to two reasons; firstly since she is only thirteen her parents as the legal guardians should have the final say on her medical development. Being the guardians, Samantha’s parents will be able to make the right call based on the advice by the doctors about her chances of recovering from the cancer after treatment using the new cure. Although the treatment is based on an experimental procedure, failure to convince Samantha to undergo the procedure willingly should not prevent the doctors from going ahead with the treatment. Being thirteen years old therefore implies Samantha cannot be given the right to decide on euthanasia based on autonomy argument. This means Samantha should not be given the chance to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the medical treatment. In addition to lack of autonomy based on her age, Samantha’s decision to refuse further medical treatment does not only affect her as the patient but her parents also. Samantha’s parents will also suffer when Samantha is left to die especially since they will be left feeling they did not exploited all available measures if they do not try the experimental procedure (Boylan 176). To avoid the feeling that they could have done more to save their daughter’s life, the parents should arrange for the experimental procedure to be carried even when if anesthesia will have to be applied if Samantha does not support the idea. Although the parents risk severing their relationship with Samantha especially during the time she needs them close, they have to try all the available alternatives that might make their daughter recover. Secondly, her judgment of the situation might be impaired by the pain and suffering that she must be going through. Breitbart et al notes the desire to have a hastened death is a common occurrence for many terminally ill cancer patients with hopelessness and depression being the strongest indicators of such desires (2910). Samantha might therefore be going through similar stages where hopelessness and depression as noted in the study by Breitbart and colleagues making her feel there was no alternative for her. Given the situation Samantha is in, the doctors should undertake intervention measures to tackle issues to do with depression, hopelessness as well as encouraging social support with the help of her parents for palliative care. However, her parents and doctors will know the best alternative for her in the event that Samantha still refuses to undertake the new procedure and will be based on the chances that the experimental procedure might work. Consequently, they should proceed with the procedure even without Samantha’s consent knowing that the decision has been taken on medical grounds and the chances that it might successfully lead to Samantha getting well. WEEK FOUR (PART TWO) Sex selection as part of the abortion discourse has been brought to the forefront by the development in ultrasound technology which has made it possible for parents to determine the sex of their children months before birth. Debate on sex selection has created divisions even among some of those who support abortion. This is due to the existing reasons that inform one’s decision to terminate pregnancy where there are some who do it for medical reasons while other perform it due to their preference of one sex over the other. In my opinion sex selection should only be done in medical facilities when the health of the baby or the mother is at risk. This is because the ability to tell the sex of fetus has led to the abuse of the medical discovery especially when some women go for abortion based on a non-medical reason. Sex selection that based on the bias against one gender commoditizes the fetus and is therefore a basis for discrimination (Bumgarne 1301). Sex selection practices are especially harmful to the gender balance in terms of numbers since most parents will prefer to have boys than girls. Seen in the case study where June and her husband have decided to only have one boy, the issue of gender discrimination in terms of child preference is not a problem to societies in countries such as India and China but has now moved to western cultures. Bumgarne notes in the United States, 81 percent of men and 94 percent of women admitted their willingness to undertake sex selection in order for their first child to be a boy (1298). Consequently, allowing medical practitioners to conduct amniocentesis for the purpose of selecting to have one sex over the other is unethical since most of the parents are most likely to choose to have boys than girls leading to a situation where the number of girls in society will below. Sex selection that does not favor girls should not be encouraged because it can lead to social evils such as rape, kidnapping of women prostitution and other violence against women as there will not be enough women in society. Although many would argue that one should not force his or her stand about sex selection to others holding different positions, widespread adoption sex selection procedures that harms the gender balance in society will intimately affect everyone regardless of support or opposition. Accordingly, I oppose sex selection that is based on the preference for one sex over the other while also admitting that there are medical grounds that might require one to make such choices. Genetic medical condition such as that affecting Ann can be performed based on the doctor’s directive and the risks involved if she were to deliver the baby. Consequently, there should be a category of activities that have restrictions on circumstances under which sex selection can be performed by doctors. The necessary conditions under restricted acceptance of sex selection should be when preventing, diagnosing or treating disorders or disease linked to sex. Consequently, only prevention of possible transmission of genetic diseases can be grounds for sex selection abortion but not activities that support selective abortion of healthy fetus after amniocentesis (Sharpe and Carter 199). WEEK FIVE (PART ONE) If I were a member of the congressional mandated with the determination of cases that warrants death penalty, I will develop an effective criteria that would ensure only criminals who commit the most serious offences are given capital punishment. To identify cases that would warrant death penalty, it is paramount that the age of the defendant is determined first followed by their state of mind when committing the crime in order to ensure the sentence is reasonable. The important thing in determining whether death sentence is warranted under a given situation is taking care “should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences” (Hood and Hoyle 131). Consequently, sentencing one with death penalty will assess intent to kill as an important aspect of the crime. This will therefore cover crimes such as robbery with violence, persons convicted of war crimes, those who use torture, violent rape especially when serious injuries are sustained. Those convicted of attempted murder should also be considered under this since they also have the intent to kill. My choice of these crimes as the most serious and deserving death penalty is based on the respect for life. A person who does not respect other people’s right to live should not be accorded the same respect. In cases where an offender has committed murder, protecting their life implies society considers the criminal’s life as more precious than that of the victim. Therefore, death penalty for such crimes should serve retributive functions. Retribution as a reason for supporting death penalty is based on the belief that justice can only be served when the crime committed is punished by execution of the offender. Others forms of punishment even life imprisonment without parole for the heinous and premeditated murder cannot serve justice to the crime committed (Radelet and Borg 45). The friends and families of the victim will not feel justice has been served when they know they have lost their loved ones but the perpetrator of such act continues to live. Therefore, although I am aware that the by passing a death penalty to the offender does not restore the life of the victim, the family and friends of the victim will at least be consoled by the fact that justice has been served for the loss of a loved one. Whitehead and Blankenship asserts the death penalty is among the best means by which the emotions of the family of a victim can be taken care of given that many of them are outraged when the murderer does not receive a death sentence (12). Further, even when the passing of death sentence does not restore the status of the victim to that of before the murder’s crime, death penalty is a form of closure to the family of the victim while also ensuring the murderer does not commit such heinous acts again. Radelet and Borg also notes a majority of people see retribution is most suitable reaction to aggressive crimes such as heinous and premeditated murder (48). WEEK FIVE (PART TWO) Although the concept of cloning is not fully developed, there have been speculations about the possibility for a future where human beings are cloned since the cloning of Dolly (Devettere 250). However, even if the technology clone human beings were perfected, I would not go for it as a means of having children. Although I support other technological developments that has made it possible for people who cannot conceive to have children, cloning human beings is excessive use of human intelligence as it makes humans, play God by creating without following the usual fertilization procedure. The possibility that one might pass a genetic defect to their children does not compensate for using cloning as an alternative to have a child. Cloning also posts the same risk of creating a human being with major genetic abnormalities. For instance, cloning might result in a child whose genes continue to age based on the years of the donor therefore resulting in a distortion where the child is young but its genes reflects that of an older human being (Devettere 252). Cloning might lead to a number of problems resulting to the identity of the individual as it will lead to a situation where two individuals have the same genes. Although some argue that cloning will not result in duplication of the personality therefore hamper individuality based on the assumption that a person’s identify is shaped by the environment, it also a fact that their genes predisposes them to certain tendencies. Even if it is the environment that determines individuality, this does not justify cloning since in most cases the cloned child and a donor parent will reside from the same place therefore increasing the role of both the environment and genes in influencing their behavior (Caprara and Cervone 161). There have been arguments that human cloning will be the best measure for people who are unable to have children through fertilization of the ovum by the male egg. However, the number of such couples in modern society has been reduced greatly due to scientific discoveries that have made it possible for such couple to be fertile again. Cloning should not be allowed for the small number who remains since it will create a situation where other groups of people not included abuse the facility. If allowed for a small group of people who are infertile, it will only be a matter of time before cloning is advocated for other groups such as gays and lesbians. Additionally, cloning advocated for parents who have lost their child is also not well advised since it only acts as a way of replacing the dead child. Human beings should not be objects that can be replaced like goods that have an expiry date. Parents who have lost their child should go through the natural process that resulted in the birth of the dead one. If this is not possible, they should grieve and honor the memory of the child as is the usual practice. Cloning the genetic makeup of their dead child does not mean the child is resurrected as is evident from the remains of the dead one. WEEK FIVE (PART THREE) Literature on the military intervention takes two strands of arguments; state sovereignty and the moral permissibility basis of humanitarian intervention. Based on these two justifications of military intervention, I support the stand taken by Michael Walzer that every organized society has the right to “collective self-determination” and that this right should supersede any form of justifications for military intervention against a foreign state unless in rare cases (Ulrich 100). In this case states have sovereign rights that cannot be intruded by any other power especially when the matter does not threaten to escalate over the border and affect other nations. In situations where there are tribal clashes with the ruler killing members of another tribe, the situation should be viewed as an internal strife where international community can only act in the role of mediation. To attempt any form of military intervention is to breach the UN Charter protecting sovereignty of every independent state (Wheeler and Bellamy 556). Opposition to military intervention is based on the fact that a number of states with military power hide their quest to pursue national interests while in pretext of intervening to protect human rights. However, where I see military intervention in another country being necessary is where there are violence and killings which threatens to large scale residents of a country. Such a situation calls for international intervention before the crisis develops into genocide. This is also supported by the United Nations where the sovereignty of a state does not imply ‘sovereignty as a licence to kill’ (Wheeler and Bellamy 556). Military intervention into a country where leaders perpetrate mass killing of civilians is catered for in the argument by those in favor of military intervention who argue the UN charter does not ban the use of military force in situations where a state or its leaders perpetrate abuse of human rights on a massive scale. While recognizing the legitimacy of the government in place, the support for military intervention is justified in cases where such a government does not protect but kill the people whose human right it is supposed to uphold. Consequently, military intervention into another country should not be permitted unless is taken as a measure of last resort. Taking military action against a sovereign state for the purpose of gaining resources which could not otherwise be tapped through trade does not constitute a justified intervention and should therefore be condemned in the strongest terms possible. This is because such move threatens world peace as it will lead to other state with military power attacking weaker states for their resources. The consequence of such move is anarchy in the world where the rule of law will cease to have any meaning. This view of military intervention into the internal security issues of another state is shared by Edward Luttwak in his popular work Give War a Chance where the author argues military intervention only acts to intensify and prolongs the security situation leading to “endemic conflicts that never end because the transformative effects of both decisive victory and exhaustion are blocked by outside intervention” (Luttwak 44). Works Cited Breitbart, William, Barry Rosenfeld, Hayley Pessin, Monique Kaim, Julie Funesti-Esch, Michele Galietta, Christian J. Nelson and Robert Brescia. Depression, Hopelessness, and Desire for Hastened Death in Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer, 284. 22 (2000): 2907-2911. Print. Bumgarner, Ashley. "A Right to Choose?: Sex Selection in the International Context, A." Duke J. Gender L. & Policy 14 (2007): 1289-1309. Print. Caprara, Gian Vittorio, and Daniel Cervone. Personality: Determinants, dynamics, and potentials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print. Devettere, Raymond J. Practical decision making in health care ethics: Cases and concepts. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2010. Print. Hood, Roger G., and Carolyn Hoyle. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Luttwak, Edward N. "Give war a chance." Foreign Affairs 78. 4 (1999): 36-44. Print. Sharpe, Neil F., and Ronald F. Carter. Genetic testing: care, consent and liability. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print. Radelet, Michael. L., & Borg, Marian. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 43-61. Print. Ulrich, Hans Günter, ed. Political Practices and International Order: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Societas Ethica. Munich: LIT Verlag Münster, 2007. Print. Wheeler, Nicholas J. and Alex J. Bellamy. Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics. In John Baylis and Steve Smith ed., The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Whitehead, John. T., & Blankenship, Michael. B. (2000). The gender gap in capital punishment attitudes: An analysis of support and opposition. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(1), 1-13. Print. Boylan, Michael. Medical Ethics. New jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 2013. Print. Read More