Discuss about abortion and its methods.
Discuss about abortion and its methods. Abortion is a topic that which brings with it much debate and controversy, whether it be between peers or cultures. It seems also that feelings are disparate and of polar opposites and people tend to cling to one pole without regard for the opposite opinion. Arguments for and against abortion tend to be rooted deep in moral or religious beliefs, with some feeling that it is their body, therefore they should do a they please, while others argue concern for the living baby within the mother. Akin to the numerous feelings regarding abortion are numerous methods in which on can abort a pregnancy, all of which are correspondent with the amount of time elapsed within the pregnancy. Prior to delving into specifics of abortion a definition of the term would make lucid the context of which is being discussed. Therefore, abortion is essentially the termination or aborting of a pregnancy prior to the event of birth. An abortion occurs when the mother or other party involved (perhaps parents or father of the child) determine the pregnancy is undesirable or not feasible at that given point in time. Many there are, reasons for the carrying out of the fore defined term. Such reasons include: an immature commitment to parenthood such as the case of teenage parents, or even a pregnancy that was seen as unwanted or an interference such as a career
Problems with PPACA
Problems with PPACA: Higher Costs PPACA has touted new benefits without measures to cut cost.1 One should know that in America there are already federal laws and programs to cover the elderly (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), and uninsured children (CHIPs), In addition there is basically free or low cost care to anyone who needs it and it is available if one looks for it. Examples include: Shriner’s hospitals, free clinics, and providers who do pro bono work. In case that wasn’t enough, there are also laws in place that ban practices of charging more to people with pre-existing conditions in employer-based health insurance. The 60% of Americans who get their healthcare insurance from their employer may actually be hurt by PPACA. All one needs to do is make the connection that minimum standards for health insurance and broader access to subsidized healthcare will drive taxes up.4 But for those who have a hard time making the connection, the literature supports costs 3 times higher than initially stated by President Obama, and an additional $118 billion through 2023.3 In order to drive home the point of higher costs, look at an example used by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Alito spoke on the hypothetical typical healthy 27 year old worker who on average consumes less than $900 annually on healthcare services. Under the PPACA that same healthy 27 year
The right to die: should euthanasia be lawful?
The right to die: should euthanasia be lawful? Euthanasia can be defined as committing suicide in order to attain a painless and easy death or the term is widely known as an intentional killing of a person in his own interests. It is carried out when a patient himself asks for it but in some cases when a patient is not able to make such a request, he is supported by a doctor or any other person. Over ten years, there has been a much debate regarding the legalisation of euthanasia as it is considered beneficial for the patients who are terminally ill, but it has also been stated as a crime to assist or support anyone in committing suicide.1 The main statute governing this issue is the Suicide Act 1961 and later two bills were passed concerning the legalisation of euthanasia. However, this essay will focus on the main arguments concerning whether the euthanasia should be lawful or not. Suicide is defined as ending our own life. The Suicide Act was enacted in 1961 which abolished the law whereby committing suicide was a crime for a person. However, under the section 2(1) of the Suicide Act, 'A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years'.2 Furthermore, the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill was
![Within the context of professional ethics, observing the principle of confidentiality means keeping information given by or about an individual in the course of a professional relationship secure and secret from others. In Hunter v Mann[1]](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/96930/listing/96930_1.jpg)
Within the context of professional ethics, observing the principle of confidentiality means keeping information given by or about an individual in the course of a professional relationship secure and secret from others. In Hunter v Mann[1]
Within the context of professional ethics, observing the principle of confidentiality means keeping information given by or about an individual in the course of a professional relationship secure and secret from others. In Hunter v Mann1, Boreham J considered the question of whether a doctor owed an obligation of confidence to his patient and concluded that: 'In common with other professional men...the doctor is under a duty not to disclose [voluntarily], without the consent of his patient, information which he, the doctor, has gained in his professional capacity.' There is a public interest in health professionals maintaining patient confidentiality - this encourages patients to fully divulge relevant information so that the healthcare professional can make a proper assessment of the patient's condition. On the other hand there may, occasionally, be circumstances where the interest in maintaining confidentiality is outweighed in the public interest. English courts have retained great flexibility in interpreting the scope of the doctor's obligation of confidence. The courts balance the public interests favouring confidentiality against those favouring disclosure in the particular circumstances of each case. In X v Y2, a Health Authority sought an injunction to prevent a national newspaper publishing the names of two practising doctors who were receiving treatment for AIDS.
Euthanasia. Despite the fact that euthanasia is classified as a criminal act and law takes no account of the motive of the doctor, instances where doctors are charged and prosecuted for having performed active euthanasia upon a patient are few
The definition of euthanasia is "good death", from the Greek "eu" for good, and "thanatos" for death and can be accomplished either through oral, intravenous, or intramuscular administration of drugs. In common usage, such as in the UK, it is employed to refer to "the act of killing someone where, on account of his distressing physical or mental state, this is thought to be in his own interests".1 The Dutch version is narrower and means the "termination of life by a doctor at the express and voluntary wish of a patient".2 Except the Netherlands, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002 under strict rules, euthanasia is against the law, and classed as a criminal act. The victim's consent does not provide a defence in the UK "therefore deliberate euthanasia would normally leave anyone assisting liable for murder"3, this however is rarely the case. Despite the fact that changes have been attempted in the law of euthanasia in the UK, they have remained unsuccessful until today. Despite numerous attempts to legalize active voluntary euthanasia, e.g. the 2004 "Assisted Dying Bill"4, reform efforts have failed in the UK where the traditional belief remains that "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" ... The Hippocratic Oath.5 Statistics suggest that doctors in the UK are hardening their attitude towards euthanasia "just 2.6% of doctors said
Abortion laws in the UK - A Critical Analysis
Abortion laws in the UK – Critical Analysis Abortion is a sensitive and contentious issue that is often intertwined with religious, moral, and political connotations. It is an internationally controversial public health issue because unlicensed medical practitioners often perform abortions under unsafe procedures that can be fatal. Historically, the medical code of ethics is founded upon the foundations laid down in the Hippocratic Oath. Therefore, it is sworn upon that a doctor should “…give no deadly medicine if asked nor suggest such counsel and in like manner I will give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion”.[1] The controversial issue of abortion has always been the subject to the attention of the media and public at large. Cases of abortion escalated in the United Kingdom since its decriminalisation in the Abortion Act 1967. This Act regulates the laws on abortion in England, Scotland and Wales, with the exception of Northern Ireland.[2] The Act was only amended once that is by virtue of Section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The law empowers doctors with the rights and responsibilities to decide on matters pertaining abortion. This can be seen as an anomaly as the statute was enacted to mitigate problems of illegal abortion, which was prevalent in the UK prior to the Act. It has been argued by Sheldon, drawing from the analysis of
In what ways do the security guidelines that HIPAA provides assist or require organisations to identify risks and develop appropriate risk management strategies for information security? For example, what rights does someone have if he finds out that: (a) His medical file contained in the information system of a large medical centre has been read without authorisation by a receptionist.
In what ways do the security guidelines that HIPAA provides assist or require organisations to identify risks and develop appropriate risk management strategies for information security? For example, what rights does someone have if he finds out that: (a) His medical file contained in the information system of a large medical centre has been read without authorisation by a receptionist. She has relayed information about a health crisis he wanted kept secret to his employer who is a close friend of the receptionist. The latter’s job merely entails arranging appointments at the centre. (b) His medical file with photographs of an unusual and embarrassing medical condition he suffers from have been posted by a teenager on YouTube. The teenager found the information in unencrypted form on a USB flash on a train. It appears it fell out of a doctor’s pocket. She was taking the information home to work on writing a paper about the condition for a conference. HIPAA[1] and the Rules and Guidelines[2] made thereunder provide an elaborate framework for health insurance, identifies who can legally hold information[3] whose information and what type of information[4] is protected, how that information[5] may be used and how that information may be accessed. The Privacy Rule[6] provides for standards for electronic exchange, privacy and security of information[7]. It therefore
What is meant by euthanasia?
The term Euthanasia has become well known throughout the country. The word is derived from ancient Greek eu thantos, meaning "easy death." Today, euthanasia is referred to as mercy killing. There is much controversy over whether or not the practice is just. Euthanasia raises many religious, medical, and ethical issues. Euthanasia can either be active or passive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician or other medical personnel induces death. An overdose is administered to the patients in the form of insulin, barbiturates, or morphine, and then followed by an injection of curare. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is allowing the patient to die due to lack of treatment. This includes taking the patient off their support system, or respirator. Passive euthanasia also includes stopping the food supply intravenously to comatose patients (Compton's, 1). Debate has flourished against those who accept passive euthanasia, but reject active. Questions are asked why one form is accepted and not the other. The distinction that is made between the two of them is that active is murder, while passive is merciful. Turning off support systems is a positive act of death (Singer, 76). In the Encyclopedia of Bio-ethics, some religious views of euthanasia were given. Hebraic and Jewish denominations strongly oppose the practice. They believe life is a precious and divine gift, and
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill have two different standards for a right action. Each of which will be briefly explained in the following paragraphs with examples to further elaborate these standards.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill have two different standards for a right action. Each of which will be briefly explained in the following paragraphs with examples to further elaborate these standards. Immanuel Kant offers his standard as the, "Supreme Principle of Morality." This principle by itself constitutes a task that is complete in its purpose and should be kept separate from every other moral inquiry (Grounding. 392). Thus, a person need no other reason to do something other than s/he wants to do it. S/he has no ulterior motive, the action is being done simply because it is satisfying to him/her. For example, a person has three pieces of candy. S/he can either eat all three pieces or share with two friends both actions are acceptable. S/he would be happy eating all three pieces by herself, therefor choosing not to share. According to the, "Supreme Principle of Morality," her/his decision is correct because s/he is happy. The Intrinsic good is fulfilled, therefor promoting her/his own interests. According to Kant this is correct because s/he is promoting the greatest happiness for her/his self. John Stuart Mill's standard is the, "Greatest Happiness Principle." This principle holds that actions are right in proportion, as they tend to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong as they promote the opposite of happiness (*utilitarianism 1104). This principle