Morality is not simply about avoiding the wrong, but is also about doing what is virtuous. This theory is secular in the fact that it is non religious and therefore universal as it can be applied to all, and we all strive for happiness. Virtue ethics also values morality for its instrumental worth as when people acquire good habits of character, they are better able to regulate their emotions and their reason. This, in turn, helps us reach morally correct decisions when we are faced with difficult scenarios. Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person.
Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God. Another main point of the argument is over the woman's personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman's body, therefore it should be the woman's decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.
Instead, it is more of a guideline, or standard. When deciding how to treat someone, you should take into account how they want to be treated. But ultimately, you just have to use common sense and situational awareness. Also, without knowing the person's preferences, you should start at a reasonable level of positive treatment above what you expect. But with only the rule to guide a person's actions, this interpretation is the least vulnerable to extremes.
Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother’s life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.
“Relativist ethics are unfair.” Discuss. Relativist Ethics are not unfair in today’s society, as they change depending on the situations and are subjective, dealing with smaller details of actions. In the modern day, situations all have factors that can give them good or bad motives. For example, the subject of abortions differs depending on the person. Some may say that it should be allowed because it allows rape victims to abort an unwanted child.
Unit 304 2.1 While working in care, the aim is to give the best possible standard of care to service users, but sometimes there can be a conflict beetween the individual’s or their family’s wishes and rights and the duty of care. In this case the most important thing is to decide whether the person is aware of the risks and consequences of the decision and has the capacity to make the decision. Before taking best interest decisions I have to make sure that the person definitely lacks the capacity. The person or their next of kin has an overall right and responsibility in decision making for issues relating their care, and I need their consent to deal with certain issues. When a dilemma arises, my responsibility is to support individuals or their families to make informed choices.
P5- Describe the ethical issues surrounding the use of assistive technology Ethics are the moral codes we live by that allow us to know what is right and what is wrong and enable us to know the best course of action to take in different circumstances. It is the motivation that pushes us to do the right thing by those around us. It is believed that if a person has good ethics then they do not single out any individual based on genders, race, religion e.c.t; this same principle applies to health and social care so that no single client gets seen more than the others. This isn’t illegal to do but it is morally wrong. One question that is based on an individual’s ethical principals is the debate on euthanasia and whether or not it is right to terminate the life of a terminally ill patient that is suffering.
In circumstances where this is not possible, I feel the answer to this question is best left in the hands of medical professionals. The reason I feel competent patients should have the right to refuse medication is because I believe a person has a right over their body and should be able to refuse what they put in it. If a person is deemed dangerous of harming others or may act in a manor which violates the rights of others as a result of not taking their medication and is not determined to be incompetent, they should be subject to an evaluation by a medical professional. If the patient is still determined to be competent and refuses to take their medication, I believe they should not be forced to take the medication. I don't like my decision about supporting a
Drug addicts and alcoholics should not involuntarily be committed to a hospital for assessment and treatment. All individuals have the right to self-determination and their personal autonomy to live their life the way they choose should always be respected. Individuals of age should have the liberty to decide what is best for them without government paternalistic interference. If interference is required because an individual’s actions harm others, legal actions should be taken to punish them lawfully by still respecting their rights. The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them.
A patient’s autonomy should be respected, that is, if a person wishes for active euthanasia, and if his wish for the same is reasonable enough, given that his suffering to come would be unbearable, then this wish of his should be respected and not deemed as illegal. However, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is relief of suffering. Great advances have been made in palliative care, and many argue that this obviates the end for euthanasia. Patients who are severely ill or disabled are vulnerable and may feel the pressure to ask for euthanasia, this is because even if no-one is pressuring them to opt for euthanasia, they may want to die to spare their families