Read the introduction in your text (pp. 1-40) and review my notes (under "notes & links"). Then, discuss the prompts below. After you make your original post (by Tues 5 May), followup on 2 of your classmates' posts (by Sun 10 May). Since this is a big class, if you can't make an original post without completely repeating what someone else has already posted, then just comment on someone else's. Maybe use an example to help.
- Give an example of something that doesn't fit cleanly into all of these categories: morality, legality, etiquette/custom, religion. Explain your categorization. For example, take using pot. I could say that it is moral for medical uses; legal in some states; some circles approve, others don't; religion X is neutral about its use but religion Y condemns it. When you comment on another's example (your follow-up), gently challenge each other's categorizations. So you might challenge me by saying, if it is ok for medical use, why not for mental health (stress relief)? And so forth.
- What are the conditions that excuse or mitigate moral responsibility? Followup: Do you agree.
Assisted suicide doesn't fit cleanly into all of these categories. Moral for a person to refuse a life saving surgical operation; Legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana; Patients refuses life saving blood transfusions due to religion. Also Methodist & Baspitst tend to support Assisted suicide while most other religions are against it. People are more likely to agree with assisted suicide if they witnessed a love one how had to suffer greatly before dying however many people oppose the choice.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the conditions that excuse or mitigate moral responsibility is if a patient is suffering with a terminal illness. If they are in their right mind, they should be able to make the choice of ending their life under their own means so they do not have to spend what is left of their life in pain.
I agree with you as well. I think If a person knows that their illness is terminal and they are still with sound mind they should have the right as well as the choice to make that decision. Like the Brittany Maynard case she moved to Oregon so she could make that decision. She wanted to die with dignity and did not want her family to watch her fade away, slowly dying. I remember watching her in a interview and she said at times she couldn't remember her husband's name and the headaches she had from the brain tumors were so intense and painful she couldn't stand it. If pain and suffering can be eliminated and to know your loved ones will be at your side when you leave this world, you should have the right to make that happen.
DeleteAbortion is something I feel doesn't fit into all these categories. Is it morally right for someone to terminate their pregnancy at any stage. Can it be justified if you were raped, or if the child had medical conditions that he wouldn't survive when he was born. Maybe the mom has a medical condition and won't survive after the child is born.
ReplyDeleteI believe that abortion in some cases is justified. I know I will take a lot of heat from this especially since I work for a catholic hospital and attending a catholic school. I think on these special circumstances women should have counseling before and afterward. I don't think abortion should be used for a form of birth control and as stated before women should have a choice with rape and medical issues.
Abortion is performed legally in some states and is illegal in others. Do we really want to go to back street abortions as it was in the past? There is always going to be the religious debate of churches saying that this is murder of an innocent child and only God should make the decision of death.
Women should have the option of abortion in only the special circumstances that I stated before. They should be educated about their decision and not be made to feel guilty if they do choose to end the pregnancy. Woman who have been raped already have a lot of guilt about the rape and they shouldn't be made to feel worse with the decision of abortion if they choose it. Women who have chose abortion will always feel morally responsible.
I agree that abortion should be a woman's choice under certain circumstances. Counseling is an excellent idea because I believe that if a woman is raped she should get counseling to deal with the emotions of that and if a child is conceived through that then she definitely needs some counseling to deal with all the stress and/or guilt she is going to experience. I completely agree that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control and it should only be used for a limited number of scenarios.
DeleteI agree that abortion is a choice that women can elect to have for many of reasons. What I don’t encourage is using abortion as a form of birth control or having an elective abortion without counseling. The catholic religion believes in prolife but there are catholic facilities that allow a medical professional to dispense the morning after pill or preform a medical abortion? I am conflicted with why that is ok?
DeleteI also agree that abortion is a personal choice. I believe a women should be able to do what she wants with her pregnancy. I don't think it should be used as a form birth control either. There are many different reasons why one would choice to termnate a pregnancy and for someone to make this choice it would be hard so I feel judgement should not be placed. I think they should have counseling before and after to help them deal with thier choice.
DeleteThis was going to be my topic, but you expressed it so well that I truly have nothing left to say. Abortion should be a woman's choice. I do think it should always be an informed choice as Shelley stated, not one to take lightly. I also agree with Jodi, isn't it somewhat hypocritical of us to dispense the morning after pill if we are pro life? It is designed to prevent conception, a no no I believe in the Catholic religion.
DeleteI disagree with abortion, but agree there are many hard circumstances that women go through where they want that option. It just seems to me that there are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies that would step up and take them without having the baby harmed. Many women who have had abortions have regrets, in addition to whatever trauma made them make the decision. I would venture to say that going back and interviewing these ladies 5-10 years later, they may have wished they had made a different choice, toughed it out realized that life is short and they would have made it work. The other thing is that Dr's are not always right, we know this. There have been many miracle stories where babies who were supposed to have deformities or disabilities were born normal.
DeleteI disagree with abortion, but agree there are many hard circumstances that women go through where they want that option. It just seems to me that there are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies that would step up and take them without having the baby harmed. Many women who have had abortions have regrets, in addition to whatever trauma made them make the decision. I would venture to say that going back and interviewing these ladies 5-10 years later, they may have wished they had made a different choice, toughed it out realized that life is short and they would have made it work. The other thing is that Dr's are not always right, we know this. There have been many miracle stories where babies who were supposed to have deformities or disabilities were born normal.
DeleteI believe that human lives deserve to be valued, including the lives of those not yet born. While I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to carry a baby where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, I believe the number of abortions for these reasons is very low. I think that abortion is used as birth control more often than realized. Isn’t the time to think about birth control before sex, not after conception? For what reason (outside of rape, incest, and imminent threat to the mother’s life) is an abortion not considered “birth control”?
DeleteMoral: A 22 year old female that was in a MVA and presented in the emergency room with multiple traumatic organ injuries that requires a blood transfusion to sustain life and the patient refuses. Law: The patient has right to make decisions for self however the patient is in and out of consciousness. The patient’s significant other is at the bedside providing consent to transfuse blood products. Religion: The patient is a Jehovah Witness and does not believe in receiving blood or blood products.
ReplyDeleteThe conditions that may excuse or mitigate moral responsibility for this scenario: If the patient is able to explain to the physician of the consequence or potential outcomes from refusing blood or blood products. If the patient has a copy of a legal form such as advance directives that directly states the patient’s wishes to refuse blood or blood products under any circumstance.
I believe that a person's wishes should be followed in the MD's working with patient have copies of those readily available. If a person goes through the process of having an advance directive written up then I think it should be honored. I also believe that a Jehovah Witness should have their beliefs respected. We may not always agree with a person's wishes, but if they were in the right state of mind when legal papers a drawn up then I don't think we should question them.
DeleteI also believe that a person's wishes should be followed even if we do not agree with them. If they have the paper work in hand and can state
Deletewhat they want we should do it. It is our job to protect the patients rights no matter what a love one says or what we think. I have to say I have taken care of some patients that has refused blood transfusions and it is hard to watch them slip away. The outcome was death. Not a good feeling when you know the blood transfusion would had helped. But their choice was granted and they chosed it.
I believe that if the patient has the proper legal paperwork and she is unable to give consent for blood transfusions then her past wishes should be honored. The medical staff nor her significant other will has the right to over ride her wishes that were made legal when she was not under duress. Those same people will not be living her life or living with the decisions that are made that day for her. She may have a very strong faith and feel if she went against her fate that she had failed God.
DeleteI also believe that the question should be asked to her in the presence of the MD, charge RN and primary RN is she would like to have blood products. If there is any doubt with her answer, as if the time as come and she now has changed her mind, then the products should be given to her. People make decisions and change their minds when the actual time comes. This has to be taken into account.
In vitro fertilization is a topic that gets different opinions from people. Today it is a more talked about subject and more accepted because it is becoming more common. I have to speak from experience, when I had trouble conceiving my first son I sought out fertility assistance and I heard from family members that I rarely associate with how people should not interfere with Gods plan. Some people believe that if a person is supposed to have children then they will be blessed with a child.
ReplyDeleteFor me, my husband and I were ready to start our family and it just wasn’t happening. I was willing to do whatever it took for that to happen. The only struggle that I dealt with was what to do with any leftover embryos if we had any. I think it’s a very personal decision and a person should be allowed to make it themselves, I believe that science is extraordinary and it’s wonderful that doctors have discovered ways to help people that struggle with infertility. In my case I conceived my son and while I did have left over embryo’s I chose to store them for later use. Later came and all embryos were used so I never had to deal the ethical dilemma of choosing to continue to store or dispose of them. I believe while frozen in a petri dish the embryo is “human”, so I do not consider that to be abortion if a person does dispose of them.
Shelley - I agree that in vitro gets different responses. Congrats on the successes you and your husband have had! Children are a gift no matter how they arrive in my opinion :-) And enjoy the time with them…seriously…don’t blink…time flies! I don’t have actual experience with in vitro, however, have know since an early age that I would not be able to carry a child myself. My husband and I did go through testing and determined we would be able to try the route of in vitro but would have also need a surrogate to carry the baby as well. We decided that it wasn’t for us when considering the possible risk of health to the surrogate. I am glad you never had to deal with the dilemma of what to do if any embryos remained. There will be many topics in this class for which we will need to delve deeper. I hope that in this class and in life I will always be able to keep an opened mind while maintaining my values and beliefs.
DeleteI agree that IVF does not fit this scenario. I believe that God has given all of us gifts. The gift to heal, to teach and to be researchers. To say the IVF goes against Gods plan is also to say that treating people for cancer is the same type of sin. God has given everyone gifts. Through these gifts innovations in health care have been found. Life is not brought about unless God grants it, with or without IVF.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that mandatory vaccinations for school children fits cleanly into all 4 of these categories. Parent who chose not to vaccinate children may feel that the risk of vaccinations outweigh the benefits. They feel they are following their fundamental principles or what they deem morally correct. It seems they feel that this choice is in the best interest of their children. When considering the legality of vaccinations, Kentucky has laws and regulations for vaccinations however also provides exemptions for medical reasons and religious beliefs. This topic is becoming of increasing interest with the recent outbreak of measles and other communicable diseases.
Conditions that may excuse what most parents find morally responsibility in vaccinations include those medical reasons and religious beliefs that parents have regarding vaccinations.
Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children if they are mentally competent and have legal custody of them. A growing problem within the US is a lack of health care promotion and prevention education. Often, the reason why parents choose to refuses vaccinations is because of the lack of education about the importance and are frequently embedded in the media for direction. If the parents choose not to vaccinate their children because of their beliefs, I would recommend that the parents must participate in extensive training from pediatrician that specialized in infectious control/ immunizations. After completion of course, and can verbalized understanding, the parents must obtain a legal document that verifies understanding, financial responsibility, and potential outcome. A question that I often wonder as a mother of three children, “Is it right the children can attend school and expose other children since he/she was not immunized? What rights do parents that immunize their children have to refuse the unimmunized children around them?” "Are the parents that choose not to immunize their children morally responsible?"
DeleteWhat do you think Cindy? Should children be vaccinated? I think so and that is a tough comment to make because I don't believe that we as people should put things into our bodies that don't need to be there. Though as time goes on I'm starting to doubt my thoughts about this. With children though I don't want my child to have problems like whooping cough or measles which could have been prevented had they been vaccinated. It's almost like a afterthought, Vaccinations start at birth, get your babies vaccination card and keep up with the listed vaccines needed at specific times in their life. Not many people question this. Before kindergarten children have to be vaccinated per school guidelines and then again while there in school. I would like to know what religious belief doesn't encourage their adults or children vaccinated.
DeleteJodi,
DeleteI agree with you 100% on the issue of unvaccinated children being around children that have been vaccinated. I guess every parent has the right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, but at who's expense? Is it fair to put children, families, the entire community at risk for diseases that have been eradicated until now? And because of these people outbreaks are happening???
5/7/15
DeleteRobin,
I believe that children should be vaccinated. I understand not putting something in your body that you don’t need. We just do not have another way to become immune to diseases. To me vaccinations are like wearing seat belts, using sunscreen, or going to the dentist. They are things that are to keep you healthy and safe. I agree with Jodi’s comment about people being embedded in the media for direction. You can’t believe everything you hear on TV or read on the internet. We need to look deeper than the surface for factual information. And often times that factual information is buried under a mound of misinformation. It is surprising to me the number of people in healthcare who have not vaccinated their children. It is also frustrating to think of the possible impact that unvaccinated individuals could have on our community.
I do agree with you also jodi. I feel like some people that don't vaccinate their children are "going with the in thing". These people aren't educated well on not getting children vaccinated and jump on a band wagon quickly when someone famous voices their opinion and they think oh they are right . I think people do have a right to choose but their choices are putting innocent children at risk for diseas that we haven't seen in several generations. i think this is the reason sometimes people think why we don't need to vaccinate. The disease is basically extinct in the US so out of sight is out of mind. They didn't live through the outbreaks of these diseases so they dont know the effect they have. Example: we had a child that came into the er and the dr's thought the child might have mumps, the dr's had to look on the internet because they weren't sure what mumps look like.
DeleteArtificial insemination is something I don't think fits into these categories. This is on the same level as in vitro as Shelley stated earlier. My husband and I had trouble conceiving and we had to struggle with fertility issues. There are many people who feel you should not mess with mother nature. The use of medications and medical technology to get pregnant is controversial. It is morally unacceptable in the Catholic religion. But I wanted children so bad, like Shelley I would do anything to make it possible. The stories that are on the news of babies and children being abused and or killed is heartbreaking. And while going through the treatments I would always wonder why these people were able to get pregnant and have a lot of children, when I would be a nurturing and caring parent and would never do anything to hurt a child. It was a emotional rollercoaster to say the least. I feel God plays apart in the creation of new life, whether it is natural or with medical intervention.
ReplyDeleteI think that is why we are rational human beings, so that we can learn and grow. We help others and figure out ways, with medical help, to fix problems that occur. This allows us to be able to utilize the ability to artificially inseminate a woman who would otherwise be unable to have children. Thank heavens for our growing knowledgeable people.
DeleteTricia I agree with you. God does play a part in creating life. Regardless of natural or from help with artificial insemination. After all God gave us human beings that ability to figure things out. He gave man the knowledge to study and figure out how to make it possible to help someone have a child.
DeleteCapital punishment does not fir cleanly into these categories. It is not legal in all states, many people with the same religion are divided over being in favor of it or not. It is arguably immoral, based on one's own feelings of whether or not it is acceptable to take a life for punishment in lieu of they life they took. As far as etiquette, what is the proper way to take someone's life? Are there certain ways that are better or more acceptable? Conditions that may excuse moral responsibility might be a situation of domestic violence, a plea of temporary insanity etc. Mitigating conditions might be the convicts past, if he/she had a troubled childhood with abuse, domestic violence etc. The defense could use this to get a lesser sentence and play to the sympathy of the jury.
ReplyDeleteI agree that capital punishment does not fit into these categories and there is a great deal of division of those in favor /opposed. Religious reasoning as well as cultural and regional customs play a part in this as well. Our most basic thoughts of wrong or right are challenged when this issue comes up. I have seen cases where I , as morally opposed to capital punishment, have questioned my feelings based on the violence of the crime, or the age of the victim. I think for many this is never a black and white subject and that is why not all states have it. Recently in the news there was the incident of the lethal cocktail of drugs not killing the prisoner sentenced to death right away, This too seamed to raise moral/ ethical issues. Do we feel its acceptable to sentence the individual to death, but change our minds when it doesn't happen the way we think it should? you raise some great points Carla.
DeleteCapital punishment does not fir cleanly into these categories. It is not legal in all states, many people with the same religion are divided over being in favor of it or not. It is arguably immoral, based on one's own feelings of whether or not it is acceptable to take a life for punishment in lieu of they life they took. As far as etiquette, what is the proper way to take someone's life? Are there certain ways that are better or more acceptable? Conditions that may excuse moral responsibility might be a situation of domestic violence, a plea of temporary insanity etc. Mitigating conditions might be the convicts past, if he/she had a troubled childhood with abuse, domestic violence etc. The defense could use this to get a lesser sentence and play to the sympathy of the jury.
ReplyDeleteThe death sentence in our prison system is the example that I'm choosing that doesn't fit cleanly into the four categories. To me this is a very controversial topic. I'm unsure how I feel about it. I believe the law is just and fair but with regards to taking someone's life? I just don't think I can justify it.
ReplyDeleteMorality: How can taking another life, even a prisoner, be justified no matter what the reason for incarceration? Is killing a prisoner considered murder when that is their sentence? And what about the "botched attempts". According to the Death Penalty Information Center there are 44 examples of these botched attempts, 10 from electrocution, 2 by asphyxiation, and 32 from lethal injection.
Legality: There are 32 states in the Unites States that have the death penalty plus the US government and the US Millitary. There are 18 states that have abolished the death penalty. Types of executions are, by lethal injection, gas chamber, electrocution, hanging, and fireing squad. All the 32 states use lethal injection as the primary type of execution. Again isn't killing someone considered murder from a legal standpoint.
With regards to religion most groups like the Catholics and the United Methodist Church, listed on the website do not condone the taking of a person's life for any reason while a few, like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Assemblies of God , do not oppose it.
(May 5, 2015). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Death sentence it is a topic that many don't like to discuss. What is a crime that can be horrific enough for someone's punishment to be their life to be taken? If it is legal to have the death penalty in a state why should it matter how the act is carried out if the end result means that someone's life is over? Is it just a legal form of murder? Some say yes. Should someone that makes a conscious decision to go out and hurt or murder someone else be put to death? Is it an eye for an eye? Robin you brought up a great topic for debate. Everyone can have their own opinion about the death penalty and how they feel, but in the end if there were not so many evil, twisted people in this world this would not be an issue.
DeleteSame- sex marriage does not fit cleanly into these categories. This might be a sensitive topic but a hot one. Same-sex marriages is becommimg more and more legal everywhere. According to washingtonpost.com there are 37 states currently in the United States that allow couples of the same sex to be married. This always rasies moral and religion issues. I believe love is love no matter what. Marriage is between two people and should not be mocked at as something immoral. Same sex-marriages are given the same rights and make the same marriage vows as others do. I feel judgment should not be made because of a religion belief. All people should be treated with respect and kindness no matter who they choice to spent their life with.
ReplyDeleteI agree that love is love, regardless of sex. It is not for us to sit in judgment of others in regards to what they do with their lives. You can have a strong, committed relationship regardless of which sex you choose to have it with. Religion has been so deeply ingrained into our being , that I sometimes don't think we consider the emotional /intellectual feelings. Most of us did not choose who we fell in love with. How can we possibly fault someone else's relationship if they fall in love with someone of the same sex?
ReplyDeleteYou are right, a sensitive and hot topic for sure. I am going against the grain here by saying I disagree with same sex marriage. It's hard to argue without bringing religious values into the equation, since I believe it's not religion, but God's law. This is not to say I judge or condemn in any way, that is not my place. I treat everyone the same, with kindness and compassion regardless of their preference, I am not a bible thumper, but still have strong values and beliefs based on biblical teachings. My one thought to support my stand is that marriage was defined and created by God as a man and woman. If that is the case, why do they want to call it marriage? If they called it a union or something else, perhaps it would be better accepted and recognized as such. I'm not sure the point they are proving by getting married, there seem to be fewer benefits to being married these days. Many couples I know refuse marriage to file taxes separate and actually have better incomes. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, a sensitive and hot topic for sure. I am going against the grain here by saying I disagree with same sex marriage. It's hard to argue without bringing religious values into the equation, since I believe it's not religion, but God's law. This is not to say I judge or condemn in any way, that is not my place. I treat everyone the same, with kindness and compassion regardless of their preference, I am not a bible thumper, but still have strong values and beliefs based on biblical teachings. My one thought to support my stand is that marriage was defined and created by God as a man and woman. If that is the case, why do they want to call it marriage? If they called it a union or something else, perhaps it would be better accepted and recognized as such. I'm not sure the point they are proving by getting married, there seem to be fewer benefits to being married these days. Many couples I know refuse marriage to file taxes separate and actually have better incomes. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteStem Cells and Cloning- Stem cells have the capability of becoming any cell present in the human body. They can be used to replace cells that have been killed off by cancer or other injury. It is believed that whole organs will be able to be replaced by stem cells. Most people are agreeable to the use of stem cells taken from adults or from umbilical cord blood. Pro-life people tend to be against the use of stem cells from an embryo in the blastocyst stage, 5-6 days after conception. Just like with standard transplants there is a risk for rejection. Cloning a person and using those blastocysts for transplant would drop rejection rates a lot. This is also looked down upon due to could be seen as killing something that could possibly live. In my opinion, using these cells could give years to many patients at every age. Opening these treatments to patients and letting them decide if it is the right choice for them could make huge advancements in healthcare.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is no way related to a medical issue. It is a topic that in 2015 I can not believe still exists and can be a touchy subject with many. I am referring to interracial relationships. Depending upon your beliefs you may think it goes against your religion, after all I once was told "God didn't intend for races to mix, it is in the Bible". I am not a religious fanatic and I have not read the Bible from front to back, but I have looked at it a few times. Nowhere in the Bible have I been able to find this. Could anyone help me out with locating where it might say such a thing. If God did not intend for races to mix why didn't he make all of us the same. I think that would be a pretty boring world. Is it illegal to marry outside your race? Not in 2015. It is hard to believe that just 48 years ago in this great country of the United states it was illegal to marry outside your race. For me it is hard to believe that according to census.gov there were only 2% of married couples in 1970 that were interracial. That number grew to 9.5 % in 2010. As we look around at our ever changing society it is astonishing to think that people still don't agree with races mixing. It is hard to believe that we as a society can not get over ourselves thinking that we are anymore important than that person next to us that just may be a different color than yourself. It could be because of moral values, not sure what is so immoral about it. It could be your religious affiliation that keeps you from being open minded to think outside the box and love someone that is different than you. But my religious beliefs is that God loves us all no matter what color or ethnicity we are and he wants us to love each other. Or it could just be your own personal preference. To each its own. I am open minded, try to think outside the box. Try to love people of all kind and have been blessed to do so.
ReplyDelete