The body parts and organs that were named have been successful in treating the patient’s condition. Discuss whether or not these artificial organs can permanently replace the original human organ. I believe in this day and time, that completely ruling out regular transplant would not be fair because there are so many people waiting for a transplant. I feel as though artificial organs cannot permanently take the place of original human organs because a patient might not react as well to an original human organ rather than an artificial one. My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money.
I do not feel along with many others that posted on this article that it is right or ethical any more than selling your organs through the black market. I feel people should be able to choose whether they want to donate or get rid of their organs or not because it is their body no one else’s. I also feel that maybe selling organs is not such a bad idea or so morally wrong. The way I look at it is if we have to many people that are needing these transplants why not sell them??? Yes, people who are going to sell them are most likely the poorer population but if it helps save another’s life then why not?
I was not aware that several individuals were not obtaining the care they require for the reason they could not pay for it and couldn’t find insurance. The biggest influence is the health care price, health care entrance, and the consequences from it (Wood, R., 2009, p. 1). I’ve knowledge that breaking the HIPAA policies can result in punishment along with the government laws. Role of Technology Technology will perform a big position in the medical business from security, new services ideas and diagnosing patients, contacting patients and keeping touch. It will assist to make sure the obedience in the legal condition of health care and it will assist to decreased the costs and provide a superior care than before (Finnegan, 2012) Technology will assist with more communication services, electronic medical records, and more computers doctors order entry solutions and many more things than before (Finnegan, 2012).
And naturally, people are worried about "Designer Babies". Perhaps you're concerned about the slippery slope argument—we'll start treating awful diseases, but then quickly move to less critical medical needs, and on to purely elective procedures. But wouldn't the same logic apply? The fact that you might be able to convince a doctor to implant horns on your head isn't a very good argument for not letting a doctor use similar plastic surgery techniques to reconstruct a burn victim's nose. So why is it that we would say that the possibility of genetic engineering being used for something less urgent than preventing a life-threatening illness is a reason to not allow it to be used at all?
The principle of utility states that the quality of life matters when it comes to pleasure, and if we were to make the quality of a person’s life better, we must be useful and relieve that person from pain and suffering. (Falikowski, 2005) We can also refer to Ayn Rand’s Ethical Egoism to conjure that physician’s assisting suicide is ethical, since there are few people in society who suffer from long-term illnesses for which there aren’t any permanent cures. Ending their life is the only cure to stopping their
Gaylin then argues that the more controversial uses, banking and harvesting, will fix current problems of organ donation. There is a short period of time in which an organ is available for harvesting and transplant after the donor is dead. Having a stock of vital organ donors would erase the time restrictions. There is also such a supply shortage, especially of vital organs, that banking would be hard to turn down with 10,000 people dying per year while waiting for organs (Munson,2008,463). Gaylin is justified in predicting that the wholesale salvage of useful body parts is not without
People who argue against physician suicide argue about the sanctity of life. There argument believes by legalizing physician assisted suicide there is likelihood for corruption, professional dishonesty, and efficient flaw. Those who oppose for holy reasons argue, our lives are given to us by a supreme being and others lives are not ours to take, but a donation from God and to destroy the gift God gave us is a sin and therefore immoral. However, a morally wrong act can be made morally right if the process used in deciding to perform it and the way it is performed are kindhearted and usefully
31).Conversely, no-one can be appropriately assigned the right to say life-saving means should be abandoned because someone else determines that a patient is an excessive burden or that it costs too much to treat a condition. Humans deserve the right to life, even if that life is not what others may judge as a good one. The government and doctors’ cannot decide who lives and dies by passing a law that relieves patients of their rights. Mankind’s right to die has been extensively discussed; however, passing laws in support of physician-assisted suicide takes that option from the patient and puts into the hands of those who may not have the patient’s best interest in mind. This topic is bigger than allowing a loved one to go softly from life, it involves too much room for the abuse of the nation’s elderly, mentally ill, and poor, which should not, and cannot be allowed to
The American Medical Association has generally argued against physician assisted suicide on the grounds that it undermines the integrity of the profession (Braddock & Tonelli 1998). Although patients can commit suicide without the aid of their physician it is still against the law and it can affect family members after they are gone. Opinions differ on the ethical consequences of trying to make physician assisted suicide the responsibility of doctors, but prior consideration of such ethically relevant consequences the question arises of whether the provision assisted suicide can logically be part of the doctor’s role (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010). At the same time the state needs to monitor physician to see that they do not break the law and take it into their hands to participate in physician assisted suicide. A physician job description is to aim at the provision of treatments with health benefits in the patient’s best interest, and to avoid adverse outcomes (Fiona Randall & Robin Downie 2010).
However I believe we should be very reluctant in making private health care a part of our standards. For example, to open it up as completely private so much that a business owner can control the prices of our health requirements would be a bad situation to be a part of. However, with proper government regulations on price and a government oriented insurance company, between our job benefits and insurance premiums we would still have premier level health care availability, but at a more “premier” cost to the individual. As stated earlier, we should not expect added health care with no added cost to do so. Under our current delivery system, it is difficult for a private health clinic to survive, much like the Cambie Clinic in Vancouver is currently learning.