G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, prejudice extends past race and gender to include unethical verdicts. It may be perfectly legal that John Hopkins researchers used Henrietta’s cells, however it is immoral. A consent form demonstrated, on page thirty-one, a vague statement and because of this the existence of Henrietta Lacks cells will always stir controversy whether it is in their origin or the continued usage for years to come and I believe we should have consent to our cells because it our rights as humans and the right to privacy. In addition, it is important for people to know what is done to cells because we should not unwillingly give consent (if we are not fully aware). Ethical dilemmas arise one being the Lacks family had no idea that a sample of her tumour had been taken and sent to George Gey.
The FDA greatly investigates these companies to make sure that food, human and veterinary drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and electronic products are safe to sell to the public. If the products turn out to be unsafe, the company will have to announce a recall. In this scenario, the FDA had yet to investigate Pro Health’s new product ProBio. Before then, Pro Health had found out that ProBio had the same brand name as another product already out for purchase. Having the same brand name as another product is also one of the things that are against the FDA’s regulations because this could protect the consumer from buying the wrong drug because of the similar names.
Many families will reject the idea of organ donation in an effort to hold on to their loved one. The case study this week regarding the distribution of organs for transplants has brought about many changes in the ways donated organs are distributed. In the case study, Misty is a 26 year old famous recording artist who has always given back by donating her time to perform benefits of charities and has established her own charity for children with leukemia. Misty is diagnosed with a rare kidney disease which will warrant a kidney transplant. She is put on the list as most patients are to wait for a match.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
I. Introduction a. Audience hook: Lives could be saved if more of the population was trained in Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and the use of an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED). According to the Heart Rhythm Society “An estimated 382,800 people experience sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in the United States each year” (Sudden Cardiac Arrest Facts 2013). Only 32% SCA victims get CPR because most bystanders do not have training.
Strengths of this study would include the large number of participants over various countries therefore a socio-cultural strength and more in depth data is produced. Another strength is the ability to access existing conditions or phenomena ethically. A weakness of this study would be using a self scale is unreliable as the participants might have a different approach on how intense the level of disgust is on the scale. Another weakness could be that there could be participants who have not taken the online survey seriously therefore altering the results. These results showed that because people find the pictures that harm our immune system more disgusting , we use the disgust gene as a protection against disease.
More precisely, she argues for the conclusion that abortion is sometimes permissible; she grants that there are scenarios in which obtaining an abortion would be immoral. What is especially novel is the manner in which Thomson constructs her argument. She begins the essay by pointing out that the debate over abortion seems to many people to hinge on whether or not the fetus is a person. Most feel that if we could only determine the answer to that puzzle, the implications for abortion would be clear; namely, that if fetuses are persons then abortions must be impermissible, and that if fetuses are not persons then abortions must be permissible. Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete.
Brain rejuvenation is not ethical especially compared to the first medical procedure you performed on Julia North. Julia North was given a fair opportunity to live by having her brain placed in a noter person's body. However, when you want to construct a brain that is the exact same as the original brain of a person and replace it with the old brain, I believe this is very unethical. If you were to make more replicas of Nick's brain and put them in other people's bodies then there would be more than one Nick, which is impossible and unethical because it should not be possible to have this issue in the first place. Therefore I believe you and the committee need to reconsider your decision on allowing brain rejuvenation and disallow it.
In the third area, there is the personal source of morality. This is the area that has sparked controversy, as it is subject to many forms of interpretation and personal understandings. In Lenn Goodman’s work, we see an argument that states there are some things, which are certainly wrong. He confirms the existence of our four fundamental and universal things that fall under the category of wrong and unacceptable acts in a society moral-minima. The first, he explains is genocide that encompasses politically instigated famine and germ warfare.