Dealing with rape in the early days dealing with rape believed the development of the foetus is not actual a person presents fewer problems. But given that rape is a horrendous experience and it might well take some time for Mabel to seek advice, by this time the pregnancy had progressed. Both Sanctity of life and the Quality of life arguments believe that humans as persons should be afforded all the right that society gives to Mabel. However the question that concerns Mabel is when does a human become a person and responsible to the moral community. There are 8 main approaches to this.
Christians believe that the moment in which the foetus gains a soul “God breathed Spirit”. Conception is the moment in which the sperm penetrates the egg. Syngamy concentrates on the processes of contraception lasting for some 24 hours in which to two sets genetic material conjoin. Implantation is the moment when the cluster of cells travel down the fallopian tubes to implant the womb. Pre-embryo occurs when the individual emerges when the cells split and monozgotic twins emerge. The next stage is when the brain activity can be apparent. Viability is when the baby’s heart begins to beat. The final perspective on when a person becomes part of a moral community is birth.
To conclude I believe Mabel should have an abortion which is justified by the sanctity of life argument that I believe is most important in this situation. In 1938 when soldiers raped a young girl Dr Aleck Bourne gave the girl an abortion in order to safeguard her mental health. The primary consideration in Mabel case is the traumatic circumstances in which conception took place. In terms of violation or fights and reduction of autonomy would justify Mabel over having the rights over her own body.
Scenario two: Jack
Jack situation causes him to be in pain for 24 hours day 365 days a year for the rest of his life put simply his quality of life would be non-existent.
He states that it is his desire and preference is death as his suffering has become unbearable and prolonged. But there are many different forms that euthanasia can take place in. Euthanasia, can be either 'voluntary 'passive’ or
'positive’ Voluntary involves a request by the dying patient or their legal representative. Passive involves, doing nothing to prevent death - allowing someone to die. Positive involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.
Euthanasia, at the moment is illegal throughout the world apart from in the State of Oregon, where there is a law specifically allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of euthanasia. In the Netherlands it is practised widely, although, in fact, it remains illegal.
In jack situation I believe he should have to choose to live or die. Jack deserves respect, freedom and the power to control his own destiny. Not everybody will have an easy death. Some terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of care and the strongest of drugs. Other distressing symptoms, which come with diseases, such as sickness, no mobility, incontinence, breathlessness and fever cannot always be relieved. Pain is not always the issue - quality of life is too. The quality of life argument states a person should have the right to determine his or her own futures so therefore it would be jack Autonomy that should decide. Jack has chosen using his own free will that he would like to decline the treatment therefore using the quality of life argument the doctors should accept.
But on the other hand, legally euthanasia is against the law. Simply put is it murder. The law is established by the religious and moral arguments, remembering that one of the Ten Commandments is 'thou shalt not kill. The sanctity of life argument states that taking of life is strictly prohibited as human beings were created in the image of God. Although, if a dog or cat is suffering, the vet is called upon and the animal is put to sleep. The owner is upset over the loss but they feel that they have done the right thing, by putting the pet out its misery. We not can look at human life in the same way however, as humans are treated better than animals and have more respect. But what is better, letting someone suffer a prolonged and very painful life, or allowing him or her to die with dignity, in peace and without pain?
To conclude Jack has asked to die with dignity, but he will spend the last moments of his life, in a way, which to him, is undignified. Having the right to control over their own life and death helps people keep human dignity in the face of their suffering. People should not be left lingering in pain. They should not have to suffer when death is inevitable.
Scenario three: Rupert
Rupert’s scenario is essentially a utilitarian problem but from the perspective of medical ethics it becomes more complicated. Responsibility is major factor in this scene are you willing to be directly responsible for killing 300,000 people or indirectly killing 12 million people.
Sanctity of life augments would consider any action were is killing someone is morally and medically wrong. This is because killing someone s against what is written in the bible, which is thalt, shall not kill. Taking of life is prohibited. Another strong sanctity of life argument is destiny. If God has a purpose for all human beings then he himself has decided to let this action take place and we should not intervene in Gods will and absolute power. Also God loves his people equally regardless of status of gender and age. Therefore killing a community to save another would be an in direct conflict of all life being sacred.
The quality of life argument shows that all people have aright to determine there own future and if the people of Reading was killed without consulting there preferences and desires then we would be denying them their autonomy. However the criticisms to this is that others will feel pain because of their chose.
To conclude I would allow reading to die because I would be saving 1170000 people. I am saving the most lives. I am preventing pain by allowing London to survive, as that would have greater repercussions. . In the end the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
