Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.

Why do you think the source is credible?
November 27, 2020
Has the Office of the President of the United States become the Imperial Presidency?
November 27, 2020

Assignment Assignment: Course Project Milestone – Final Paper

Instructions
Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

  • Summarize the dilemma.
  • Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
  • Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.

Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc.  State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

  • Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
  • Utilitarianism to the dilemma
  • Natural Law ethics to the dilemma

Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.)

Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

  • Length: 4-5 pages (not including title page or references page)
  • 1-inch margins
  • Double spaced
  • 12-point Times New Roman font
  • Title page
  • References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)

EUTHANASIA

ETHICS OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia involves terminating an individual’s life based on a life-ending disease to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia advocates argue that people have the right to make decisions about their death. They say that euthanasia is projected to mitigate pain and suffering, which is coined as “mercy killing.” Supporters of euthanasia argue that passive euthanasia, as opposed to active euthanasia, is the deliberate removal or concealment of treatment which results in the death of the patient. Active euthanasia is the intentional act of terminating the patient’s life by administering lethal drugs intentionally. Autonomy is exhibited in euthanasia when an individual is entitled to give consent and make decisions about their life in regard when they die and how they die (Kasman, 2018). Relieving pain does more good than harm, and the advocates posit that moral values such as compassion and mercy where patients should not be allowed to suffer.

Individuals who are against euthanasia posit that human life should be respected and preserved. The Christian view perceives life as a God given gift, and it should be taken away by Him. Euthanasia is seen as murder because the act of murdering another person is intrinsically wrong despite consent from the patient. The aspect of consent or autonomy is also forbidden in the argument against mercy killing because patients who are terminally ill may not be in the right mind to make autonomous decisions. Everyone has the right to life, and when suicide is allowed, it means that they are justifying the practice. The role of a physician is to help save the lives of people and not to end it.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism claims that an individual can perform some actions morally only if the decision maximizes their self-interests. An ethical egoist would say that euthanasia based on an individual’s self-interest is viewed as the best way to promote the general good (Nobis, 2020). There is a preferential treatment where a person believes that if they consent euthanasia, it means that they are alleviating pain to rest. It means that a patient will make the decisions that favour their interests.

The ethical egoist would be an advocate for euthanasia because “people have the right to make decisions for how they die and when they die.” Being in a position to die because you want to relieve pain and suffering promotes self-interests of an ill patient. When it comes to family, providing the consent for mercy killing can be enticed by egoism because they want to stop emotional and financial trauma. An ethical egoist would claim that a personal or family is avoiding financial and emotional burden.

There is a conflict between being loyal to self and the society because what I believe is the right thing to do might not seem right to the community or society. I would base my arguments using the utilitarian perspective where it might cause the family to keep an individual alive because it is harmful to the community as it weakens the value of life. The decision made should be for the good of everyone in society and not based on self-interests. The cost of keeping an individual alive and the suffering conflicts with what the nation posits should be the right thing to do.

As an ethical egoist, the best action to undertake would be to make a decision that maximizes self-interest. I feel that families and friends are suffering emotionally and financially. Therefore, I would ask to end life concerning the underlying factors. Another perspective that would be considered in this case is to make decisions based on the circumstances presented in “mercy killing.”

Social Contract Ethicist

Social contract theory involves morals that are derived is a set of rules that govern behaviour which is accepted by rational people on a condition that other people recognise the rules. Humanity is based on the rules that people enforce rather than living on universal laws or based on a divine being. A social contract ethicist may say that euthanasia is acceptable because the majority of the people have agreed that the law should be enforced (Muldoon, 2016). The state may enforce the rules that govern the practice of euthanasia. An ethicist may claim that we should administer euthanasia under the circumstances such as unbearable pain.

The social contract ethicist would advocate or be against euthanasia based on the rules of the state. If the state is against euthanasia, then a social contract ethicist would not support the act of mercy killing. Also, the circumstances involved would determine the decision they will partake. If the social ethicist were for euthanasia, then he would justify his position using the rules and laws of the land. The government has the power to exercise their rational views on the people; however, the terms of the contract may not be supported by other people.

Euthanasia can cause a collision between personal moral obligations and national obligation where one can decide to live because they feel the right thing to do. Still, the federal rules support euthanasia because economic constraints are involved. I think that the best course of action is to act per the rules of the state. The decision of taking a life should be based on what the terms and agreements of the contract state.

References

Kasman, N. M. (2018). Ethics and Euthanasia.

Muldoon, R. (2016). Social contract theory for a diverse world: Beyond tolerance. Taylor & Francis.

Nobis, N. (2020). Ethical Egoism.

Comment paper

You note well points of debate surrounding euthanasia. :..as the best way to promote the general good.” Egoism is not about the general good. How is euthanasia in the ego’s interests? It destroys the ego… You are getting rid of pain. You are also getting rid of the ability to feel anything… A family is an ego? A family is a group of egos.

trbet giriş - Olivenöl -

lavivabet giriş