Get help from the best in academic writing.

Euthanasia Essay Research Paper The medical profession get essay help essay writing tutorial

Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

The medical profession has late been caught in the center of the societal contentions that rage over mercy killing. Government and spiritual groups, every bit good as the medical profession itself have sided with the 1973 American Medical Association s euthanasia policy statement. However, there are those who oppose the statement are speak out against the AMA s apparently contradictory definition. James Rachels speaks out against the AMA s policy statement in his essay, & # 8220 ; Euthanasia, Killing, and Leting Die, & # 8221 ; by reasoning that there is no moral difference between active and inactive mercy killing. In making so, Rachels criticizes the AMA policy statement as irrational and he claims that the medical profession should reject it. However, Bonnie Steinbock, in her Book, & # 8220 ; The Intentional Termination of Life, & # 8221 ; disagrees with Rachels place, reasoning that there is a difference between active and inactive mercy killing, and that the AMA statement does non back or denounce either, and thereby supports the American Medical Association s positions. Even though Steinbock disproves Rachels thesis by reasoning that the AMA policy neglects mercy killing, she does non claim that Rachels moral point of views are wrong.

Steinbock argues that the AMA policy statement does non arouse a moral treatment between inactive and active mercy killing, which implies that Rachels, fails to to the full understand the message of the AMA statement. Rachels full essay, and parts of his book, The End of Life: The Morality of Euthanasia, are based upon the premise that the & # 8220 ; surcease of the employment of extraordinary agencies to protract the life of the organic structure when there is incontrovertible grounds that biological decease is at hand & # 8221 ; is mentioning to the term & # 8220 ; inactive euthanasia. & # 8221 ; If this were the instance, harmonizing to Steinbock, Rachels essay would be considered an intelligent response to an immoral policy. However, Steinbock contends that the AMA statement does non mention to moral differences between two types of mercy killing, but instead, that the statement rejects both signifiers of decease and in their topographic point allows for the & # 8220 ; surcease of the employment of extraordinary means. & # 8221 ; Steinbock claims that mercy killing and the surcease of intervention are wholly different thoughts, and that the AMA ne’er intended to connote inactive mercy killing as an recognized medical pattern.

Although Rachel s reading of & # 8220 ; extraordinary means & # 8221 ; seems sensible, by demoing that the surcease of medical specialty is non needfully leting a patient to decease, Steinbock proves Rachel s thesis incorrect. Steinbock states that the & # 8221 ; AMA statement does non do the differentiation Rachels wishes to assail & # 8221 ; ( Steinbock, 164, I ) . Harmonizing to Steinbock, the AMA place was directed towards instances where intervention would decline the province of a patient. Rachels most blazing mistake was in saying & # 8221 ; for what is the surcease of intervention if it is non the knowing expiration of the life of one homo being by another? & # 8221 ; ( Rachels, 155, I ) . He substantiates this claim by saying, & # 8221 ; if it were non, there would be no point to it. & # 8221 ; Steinbock denounces this blas mode of confirming the statement. In consequence, Steinbock I

nvalidates Rachels chief focal point by showing the impression that the lone moral treatment that may originate from the AMA statement is in specifying what constitutes extraordinary attention ; non the moral differences between inactive and active mercy killing.

Steinbock efforts to explicate cases of extraordinary attention by indicating out that sometimes a physician s determination to decline intervention is an effort to prolong life, non shorten it. She states that, & # 8221 ; stoping intervention is non to convey about the patient s decease but to avoid intervention that will do more uncomfortableness & # 8221 ; ( Steinbock, 161, II ) . Steinbock uses the illustration of a frail malignant neoplastic disease patient on the brink of decease in which rough interventions will merely worse the patient s position. In this instance, by holding intervention, the physician was non seeking to kill the malignant neoplastic disease patient, but instead seeking to protract the patient s life. & # 8220 ; Intentionally discontinuing life-prolonging intervention is non the knowing expiration of life unless the physician has, as his or her intent in halting intervention, the patient s death. & # 8221 ; Steinbock successfully demonstrates that Rachels is incorrect in presuming those discontinuing intervention merely serves to convey about a patient s decease.

However, this is non to state that Steinbock vehemently disagrees with Rachels positions on inactive and active mercy killing. Steinbock s thesis wasn T that Rachels was incorrect in his positions, merely that he was incorrect in construing the AMA statement. Although Steinbock ne’er straight states it, she implies that inactive and active mercy killing is morally acceptable. Her statements suggest that she is against for good labeling the ceasing of life-prolonging intervention as a signifier of inactive mercy killing, but on the other manus, she claims that in some cases it is morally right to back up inactive mercy killing. She even agrees with Rachels statement that, in some fortunes, it is good to exert active mercy killing. One would believe that she would back up active mercy killing while denouncing inactive mercy killing so as non to belie her ain thesis, but she does non make this. She states, & # 8220 ; In general, a competent grownup has the right to decline intervention, even where such intervention is necessary to protract life. & # 8221 ; She besides states, & # 8220 ; I do non deny that there may be instances in which decease is in the best involvement of the patient. In such instances, a speedy and painless decease may be the best thing. & # 8221 ; Unlike Rachels, Steinbock ne’er states that the two are morally tantamount. Steinbock does, nevertheless, emphasis that ethical motives tell us that different state of affairss call for different types of mercy killing.

By supplying clear and concise illustrations of how the refusal to medicate does non needfully connote inactive mercy killing, Steinbock successfully disproves Rachels thesis. Although Rachels insists that the moral sameness between inactive and active mercy killing is based upon the AMA policy statement, Steinbock s positions on the differences between the two actions seem to co-occur with those of Rachels. Whether or non active mercy killing becomes a medically recognized process, there is no uncertainty that the AMA statement is non binding, but merely meant to connote that inactive mercy killing is an recognized medical pattern.

relative age and isotope

Answer the following questions with a concept sketch and/or a few sentences.
How do we determine relative age and give an example from everyday life.
How do we determine absolute age? Briefly define an isotope. Draw a flowchart showing radioactive decay for mineral X given: you have 5 parent atoms and 35 daughter atoms in mineral X in the year 2014 and the half-life is 100 years. How old is mineral X (age and year formed)?
How would you measure latitude? Draw lines on latitude on a globe.
How do you measure longitude? Draw lines of longitude on a globe.