Philosophy paper help?

Question

Ok so I need to write a 3-5 page paper and the topic that I ended up having to do is: We can't get anywhere in medical ethics unless we settle the question of what a person is.
I have 3 other papers due the same time as this one in different topics and the proffesor isn't in any mood to give us any spare time in spite of the fact that some of us also have other papers. So can anybody help me with this topic? Oh and I'd rather not see any answers like "stop being lazy and do the work already" thank you.

Answer 1

OK.

Many areas of medical ethics hinge more on questions such as informed consent and confidentiality rather than the definition of a person. Those which do include issues of contraception, fertility, stem cell research and its applications, the medical or other use of the products of conception, the termination of pregnancy, the treatment of anencephalic infants and euthanasia. Areas where personhood is not at issue include medical research, the use of medical records for epidemiological research without consent, the impact of test results on employment and insurance prospects and the use of animal procedures such as transplant organs and the production of vaccines.

Judith Thompson, 1971, Philosophy and Public Affairs, in a paper entitled "A Defense Of Abortion", argued that since if one was involuntarily medically attached to a valued adult member of society in such a way that they could not survive without the attachment, one would not be obliged to continue that attachment even if it resulted in their death, the issue of abortion does not depend on personhood but on the right of control over one's own body.

Doctrine of double effect: Death of the foetus is an inevitable but unintended consequence of abortion, so even if the foetus is a person, abortion can be defended on the grounds that it is:
* well-intentioned
* the good effect outweighs the bad
* good-natured, i.e. it relieves distress by its nature.

Another example of double effect is vaccination, where the intent is to avoid infection but the effect is that a few recipients will be injured.

Potential personhood is another issue, in that a line would have to be drawn to mark the point at which personhood is potential because male masturbation is not the same as murder and artificial insemination involves the death of all but a few sperm.

At the other end of life, there are comas and organ donation. Is a human in a persistent vegetative state a person? People have come round after long periods of being considered brain dead. If someone is left on a life support system for a long time because they are still considered a person, they are using up resources which could save lives in far more clear-cut cases, and their organs could save the lives of others as well. Issues here include the slippery slope argument: if brain dead people are killed, this may gradually become the murder of conscious people. Another issue is that of loved ones: the maintenance of life support may depend more on the beliefs of the loved ones and the notion of the right to die with dignity than the decision of the medical staff. If there is a living will, the wishes of the possibly ex-person are better defined, and the problem then becomes that of whether there is a duty to respect the known wishes of the dead rather than personhood.

Sorry, that's all i can think of right now. I hope that was helpful.

Answer 2

Firstly, I don't think the question will ever be answered regardless of what the law says because there will be someone or some group that disagrees with it.

I also believe that the question of 'person-hood' is not really the problem. I think it comes down to a matter of ignorance, fear and religious dogma standing in the way and those things are much more difficult to address.

Also, there are other areas in which to advance medical ethics. Education and time will wear away the stigmas and misconceptions that impede medical ethics. It's not a brick wall that medical ethics is facing but more of a steep incline that can be slowly and methodically scaled.

Answer 3

i don't know the works of the large philosophers (Socrates, Kant, Plato) properly sufficient to remember particular works that help this paradox. yet i will deliver one risky thought to the exterior. replace. Philosophy brings approximately information and records of ourselves and the worldwide around us by way of exploration and scientific learn. this records produces replace, and alter may well be risky, fairly while that fluctuate impacts a society's information or perception on the subject of God. background shows that Galileo suffered while he delivered the assumption of an earth revolving around the sunlight. It became complicated for the Church to incorporate those scientific info by using fact it may stress a metamorphosis to their philosophy of God and their place on earth. the a risk implications have been frightening. What could this popularity of the earth being merely yet another planet lead the people to have faith next? and could those new ideals threaten the ability base of the Church and its effect on the State? background additionally dissects each and every revolution and strains the origins back to a philosophy in contradiction with the present form of government, and one voice that carried that philosophy to the people. Is philosophy risky? Is information risky? Will information undermine the ability base of the despot or the tyrant? there is your hook. and you will truthfully play the different element and talk the advances to fashionable technological information that owe their origins to philosophers. especially circumstances your desirable thinking may well be interior the bathe, while the sentiments of the day earlier to this are long gone and your strategies are unhindered. So, sleep on it and interior the morning, dig into the Federalist papers and analyze the philosophy of our founding fathers. efficient stuff. fee many lives. Very risky. :-)

Answer 4

Is a person just the body? That is the conflict in medical ethics anyway.

Answer 5

1

Answer 6

Stop being lazy and do the work already! (kidding ;)

I agree with Gee, good answer.