My answer is absolutely not. Those ventilator systems could be used on patients who can actually pay off their medical bills and may actually have a chance of surviving. I personally do not think that it is worth it to use the energy and money to keep someone alive just a short time longer. As cutthroat and cynical as that may seem I do have good reasons for why I think this. It is a natural human instinct to
Using the predominate purpose test the blood transfusion was a service performed to provide healthcare not to sell the patient blood, so, Article 2 would not apply, it would fall under common law. I don’t think there is really a right answer here because the U.C.C. doesn’t give guidance on mixed contracts and courts have come up with varying conclusions on how to tackle this issue. In Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital the court refused to impose liability for a breach of warranty because it found that the predominant purpose of the contract between the patient and the hospital was for restoring the patient’s health which is a service. The blood transfusion was considered an incidental transfer of property made while performing that service.
Can one be moral and not believe in God? Have you ever judged or been judged unfairly? How about thinking someone’s a bad person because they don’t believe in God? In the world today we are beginning to see an ethical system being built based on tolerance and enlightenment; apart from God. A person undoubtedly can ne moral without believing in God.
In addition, Kant said that we should not be inclined to do things and that we should think about things and try and apply his ethical theory before carrying them out, therefore, we should not do things because of our emotions. As well as this, there is the idea that it is not part of our duty to do what we are unable to do, or what is impossible for us to do and that moral statements prescribe to us what we should do, to ought to do something implies
God is also personal as he is not a depersonalised force. He cares about his creations and caring beings are not created by uncaring beings. God wants us to act towards each other with justice and mercy; if god weren’t personal he wouldn’t mind what we did and would not tell us what to do. God is good because if he wasn’t he would be oxymoron, he would not be able to demand goodness if he was not good. God rules by moral standards.
The speaker's assertion is about the censureship of artistic works or historical displays by the government.According to the speaker, govenrment should not censure artistic works.Although ,some people believe that arts should provide education and enlightenment to society,I agree with the speaker's contention as such behavior borders on thought control and impinges on freedom of speach. To support this viewpoint, a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she want to receive or create. Art is about feelings, both bad and good ones, so art can not be censored, it will restrict the feelings of artists. Censorship in art never works. One way or another, in a society of instant communication like ours, people are always ready to see controversial and objectionable works.
He rejected happiness to be the basis of morality, because he thought moral truth could only be found through reason. He believed statement must be a priori as we don’t use our senses, and we find it through logic and without any reference to experiences. According to Kant in order to make a moral act we must always act out of duty. But we must do our duty for its own sake and not to make people or ourselves happy, because feelings, emotions, inclination, love, compassion are completely rejected in this theory. If the action is made for any other reason than pure duty it is not moral even if it’s a good action.
This is also invalid because it is better to pay taxes rather than over priced medical bills. The last con is that people will have a longer wait time. That is also invalid because the more people that visit the more of a demand there will be for Doctors. A universal health care system would extend care to all Americans regardless of social status or bank account. Health care has become extremely unaffordable for both businesses and individuals.
Making National Heath Care Law Will Not Provide Better Heath Care for Americans Chad D. Cloutier Post University Making National Heath Care Law Will Not Provide Better Heath Care for Americans While there is little debate that America needs to rework the current way health insurance and medical care is handled in the United States, having national healthcare, a.k.a “Obama-Care,” is not going improve the care we are receiving. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is anything but affordable. The price that will be paid is not only monetary, but also in a decrease in the quality of care and the timeliness of services. When you consider government stepping in and regulating an industry, you would expect the cost to go down. “Free” health care would not actually be free, however, since the funds to pay for it will need to come from somewhere.
IT is however important to note that Natural Law thinkers are not concerned with the consequences of actions, whether they bring good or bad doesn’t matter but what matters to them is whether the action itself is good or bad. Kantian Ethics would also further disagree with Fertility Treatment as the Categorical Imperative says that people must be treated as ends in themselves. If an embryo is a life then the destruction of spare embryos during IVF would be seen as using them as a means to an end. Further if the embryo was experimented upon instead, and the embryo