Currently I am in an ethics class for nursing. Coincidentally my teacher loves politics almost as much as I do. Politics happens to be filled with ethical dilemmas. The combination of these factors results in quite emotional Tuesday evenings. Not "crying" emotional, rather flushed face, shaky hands, passionate, frustrating emotional. It is rather enjoyable except when I get so involved in something that I have a hard time stepping back and letting things cool off. Or when I am too tired to have such an adrenaline rush that day.
Today we listened to groups in our class debate 2 topics:
1). Should assisted suicide be legalized?
2). Should the development of a "savior-child" be legal?
We took polls in the class before the debate started and then after the debate finished and it was super interesting to see how people's opinions changed. Mine stayed constant, don't you worry ;)
I was going to write about each of these, but I need to study for a test tomorrow. My answer to the first is a no. There is a difference between letting someone "pull the plug" or choose to not remain on mechanical ventilation and actively proscribing, injecting, or administering something to kill someone.
The second one is a little harder. Here's an explanation of what this is: A child is born with or develops a disease/genetic condition (e.g. sickle cell anemia, leukemia, etc). The parents decide to have another child, but this time they are going to fertilize several eggs and do genetic testing to choose the one that matches the genes of their first child so his/her cord blood can be used to do blood transfusions for the sick child. So, they choose the one that matches and either discard the rest or pay $40/month to keep the rest frozen. This "savior child's" cord blood is then taken to help the sick child. If that does not work they may take more blood from the savior child, take bone marrow, or do other invasive procedures that do not harm the savior child beyond the pain of the invasive procedures and the risk that always accompanies such procedures. So, to the question, "should this be done"? My answer is no. Unless you plan to use (develop?) all of the other fertilized eggs. The question "should this be legal" is a different matter. I don't like government getting involved in this like this, so in the end I might say yes to this question. But that in no way means that I think it is an acceptable thing to do.
Okay, there are my answers to those, what do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Next week I am debating whether or not medical marijuana should be legalized. Thoughts?
2 comments:
I agree that physician assisted suicide should be illegal. It
directly opposes an overriding principle of medical ethics, primum non
nocer, “first, do no harm.”
A letter sent in the wake of Oregon’s legalization…
“A fundamental doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints is that each person is a child of God. Consequently, life - a
gift from God - is sacred and to be cherished. The Lord has commanded
that man should not kill `nor do anything like unto it.' (D&C 59:6.)
"One who assists the suicide of another violates God's commandments.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes the judicial
or legislative legalization of such assistance."
For me, the “Savior sibling” debate is quite controversial. I am also
morally opposed to embryo selection at the expense of other embryos,
but disagree that the government should not get involved in things
like this. I believe that individual’s constitutional rights begin
with fertilization. If it is simply a matter of timing, and all of the
created embryos would eventually be allowed to be implanted, than I
would agree.
Medicinal marijuana is very interesting. Studies have shown that it is
about as addictive as caffeine. Other studies have shown that when
prescribed appropriately, quality of life can be improved
significantly. I believe that the physician should be able to make
such a decision with the patient, and see little difference between
other prescriptions that relieve pain and also improve life quality.
I don’t know a lot on these subjects, but I find them very
interesting! Good luck in your class!
It is important to separate what is "moral" from what is "legal." The role of government isn't to protect someone's ethics; it is to protect our rights. Rights don't equal ethics.
I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing assisted suicide except that apparently the church spoke out against that legislation (didn't know that). Just because it isn't a moral thing to do doesn't mean it is any of the state's business. Maybe the issues such as whether or not consent was actually granted freely or if it was coerced would cloud this enough to make it illegal--I don't know.
The savior-child thing is trickier for me, but I do think the child should have some say in what happens to his or her body. Kids have rights too, and while a parent is their guardian, they (the parents) are there to protect the kids from things that could cause harm, not use their bodies for the benefit of someone else. I actually read a whole book about it--My Sister's Keeper. Depressing indeed.
As far as marijuana, it should all be outside of the government's domain. Why do they have any right to tell me what I can and can't eat/snort/snuff/inject in my own body? Again, you have to separate "legal" from "moral" or especially from "good for you." Raw milk is illegal too, you know. Plenty of experts carry on and on about how that is dangerous. Does that give them the right to turn their opinion into law?
Post a Comment