To be honest, everyone has issues. I really don’t’ think it’s a necessary action to chase someone down the street with a gun because he “talked smack about you” or your mother. Make peace not war, is my motto. Violence is not the answer some might say, but without realizing it we end up in a continuous battle between one another. We campaign for peace amongst nations but that could never happen because we are too self-centered to actually agree to such a belief.
However, the Second Mile stated that they never knew anything about the incident, although this may not be accurate. Curley and Schultz were charged with failing to tell the police, and falsely telling the grand jury that they were never informed them about the incident. McQueary was a graduate assistant at the time and he displayed more good ethics than the organizational leadership of the school. By Curley and Schultz covering up the incident the abuse could continue because no one ever knew of Sandusky’s extreme unethical behaviors. However, McQueary attempted to do what was right by informing his superiors; but that was not enough to stop the abuse.
This was due to the doctors lack of knowledge on the black death, because it was new and spreading fast doctors had little understanding of what caused the disease they also didn’t have enough time to figure out a treatment for their patients before they died. Another reason why it was so terrible is that the doctors had never seen anything like this before. The patients first gained painful swellings called buboes, then came the vomiting and fever, next was bleeding under the skin, then lots of pain and spasms all to finish with a very agonising death. This all occurred over the course of 5 days. Therefore the doctors were unable to treat each of the patients because they did not know what was happening and didn’t know how to fix it.
Learning Outcome 1.2: Evaluate why, traditionally, people with disabilities have been discouraged or prevented from taking risks. For most people it is accepted that taking risks is an accepted party of life – indeed the old saying is ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. However with the historical medical model of disability this view is not one that was traditionally held when it came to people with disabilities. With the medical model people’s choices were not taken into account and therefore any consideration of risk concentrated on the potential harm – either to the individual, to others or to the organisation. In addition, the medical model also concentrated on the limitations of individuals due to their disabilities – the perception was one that they needed to be taken care of and therefore protected.
Vivian’s illness and vulnerability was robbing of her sense of self. I relate her vulnerability with that of my past experience when my father’s personhood was challenged by cancer. It profoundly affected not only his sense of self but also mine. Regrettably, what made the condition worse in Vivian’s case, is the unethical behaviours of her doctors who ignore her as a multidimensional person requiring healthcare based on her physical, psychological, spiritual and social needs (Atkins 2014, p.17). My frustration and anger are associated with the unprofessionalism of Vivian’s doctors who disregard her personhood and used her as mere means - object of their research – to bring good research outcome which, to me, demonstrates their utilitarian approach (Kerridge et al.
(Henney FDA-1) So it seems that these organizations that are made to protect us are doing their part in helping the cause of illegal drug prescriptions, yet they are not ceasing because of the lack of finding the practitioner that gives the prescription. The FDA says that in their efforts to stop these abuses, one must see a licensed doctor in order to be examined and offered the medicine. This being said, it still doesn’t target the doctor on its own. They might be able to make the process tighter, but if a doctor is crooked, there is really no way of stopping them from writing the prescription. That is why I fight that without making the process of obtaining a license to distribute prescriptions more detailed and strict, there will be no stoppage of the flow
Singer admits that there may be a “psychological difference” among the conflicting cases, but he also believes that it provides no excuse to a human’s moral obligation. To explain, just because a person feels ok about not taking action because other people choose to not take action, does not mean that they are morally justified. In his first counterexample, Singer is out to prove that whether there are many people involved in the situation, or one person, it makes no difference. With the idea “global village” and the technology of today’s society, Singer dismisses the idea of distance being a factor. He claims that “instant communication and swift transportation” have made relief organizations so efficient, and that helping them has become as efficient as helping a neighbor.
This is because no one stood up and tried to put an end to it even though they knew that it was wrong. This all begins with the commissioner, who is the leader. He should have set the example that using steroids was wrong and fought to implement strong rules against it from the start. The league did not have proper testing even when they knew that the use of steroids was an issue. Without rewards to those who did not use steroids it sent a message that players could use them and would not be severely punished.
I think that he should have consulted with his wife, kids, and Tracy’s doctor first. I find nothing okay with what he did, it was horrible and I completely disagree! Sure his daughter was in agonizing pain, but there were much better ways to end her life. What he did was not okay, and I just hope that he regrets everything he did and that he wishes he had talked to someone before doing
In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States. The deontological theory also states that happiness does not matter when it comes to making decisions regarding rules and regulations, Immanuel Kant could care less about whos happy and whos not with the decisions he makes. Therefore, Kant would not be supportive of this theory of healthcare for all of those who care concerned. Pleasure and pain also are not valid in Kants theory so whether he is providing units of pleasure or units of pain, it really does not matter to him. That is why Mills is the perfect fit for this concept of healthcare to all concerned because he wants to provide the highest unit of hedons to the