In Michael Moore’s film, “Sicko” he describes the corruption of America’s health care today while comparing it to the universal health care other countries such as France, England, and Canada are exercising. I am very glad Michael Moore produced this film because although it may not be fair to both sides, it is still very informative and sends out the message that health care companies here in America are making a healthy living a luxurious burden rather than a given necessity. The two articles criticizing his film made it a little clearer of the bias he took part in. I believe the first one, by Tom Charity, was from a more neutral stand point rather than a liberal side, like Michael Moore, or a conservative side, like I believe Stephen Hunter is on. Charity described the truth and the overall message that “Sicko” gave, which was that the “insurance companies are making a killing at their expense”, when in retrospect they are supposed to be saving lives.
One of the issues that I’ll focus on is healthcare. Romney believes that healthcare is more than just 1/6 of the American economy. He believes that it’s a source of well-being for individuals and families, and he thinks that there are many good things in American healthcare, but with Obamacare things have taken the wrong direction with its high taxes and extended federal control. Romney believes that it’s better to let the states determine their own healthcare systems. Newt Gingrich is, like Mitt Rom-ney, not satisfied with Obamac-are.
| | My ethical position for the world hunger is the moral relativism because it offers no moral guidance. It merely tells us that any particular action would be approved by one group, but denounced by another.The world hunger is a very broad and controversial issue but let's start with some questions:What should those of us in affluent nations do to help impoverished countries and individuals, especially those facing episodic or endemic hunger? It just slightly changes it. We should now ask: “Are we obliged to insure that they have adequate food entitlements?” That requires us to ask several derivative questions: do we have obligations to encourage (or coerce) their governments to enhance their entitlements? Are we obligated to establish ongoing trade relations with these countries to enhance their citizens’ entitlements?Do we have obligations to send food or to help distribute food when the country cannot do so on its own?
Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer are no exceptions. The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a continuing problem in the world today and the subject has caught the interest of both these writers. Each writer implements his own distinctive metaphor to help him express his view on the poverty situation. Garret Hardin, Professor of Human Ecology at the University of California, argues, with the help of a lifeboat metaphor that splits the countries into merely rich and poor, that wealthy nations need not provide aid to poor countries, since they will take advantage of the opportunity present to them and consequently diminish the rich states’ resources. However, Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, actually believes that Hardin is wrong in his claim and that people should spend less money buying unnecessary possessions and rather donate that money to charity.
This gives the audience an emotional response mainly anger, hatred towards the American healthcare companies, sympathy towards the afflicted and fear of being one of the victims of American healthcare system. Although Moore uses pathos as the film’s main rhetorical appeal, ethos and logos were also used to compel the audience (insured/uninsured) in order to support Moore’s argument that America needs universal healthcare. The scene initiates with using pathos by presenting several uninsured or insured people who have to experience agony and at the same time pay expensive hospital bills. For instance, uninsured people like Rick who has to endure with the pain not only by having two of his fingers sawn, but he also has to choose which of his fingers will be attached. Either way his surgery is pricey ranging from eight to twelve thousand dollars.
A Matter of Moral Thinking Student’s Name Instructor’s Name PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning 14 January 2014 A Matter of Moral Thinking Singer’s goal in the article is to argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal in 1974 (refugees starving due to political and governmental reasons) cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society (Singer, 1974). Individuals in affluent countries such as the United States tend to help when it is easy or when it suits them. Singer does not believe we are monsters for thinking this way, it is just that is how we as humans over the years have been able to justify when we do and do not help others out. If we help individuals or groups less fortunate, we tend to like to be thanked for our help. If it is over our budget or time constraints, then we justify it by stating openly or to ourselves that we did what we could and that others also need to help.
Singers plan would help many of the impoverished overseas but it is also unrealistic and demands too much from american Citizens. The Pros of singers solution is that it would not only decrease the number of poverty stricken people but would also make people realize how unmoral their priorities are. In Singers essay he compares a woman who is selling a child to the organ farm and a man upgrading his perfectly functional T.V “In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a T.V and upgrades to a better one-knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?” Here he is saying that buying a luxury is letting a child die overseas. Americans do put too much of a significance on unneeded items. If America regulated Singers proposal, it would positively effect peoples morals and the values they place on a life.
These all, in turn called the government to tackle public health problems in the 19th century. The big stink had the biggest impact in changing the government’s attitudes towards public health problems. Before the ‘big stink’ the houses of parliament were unaffected by the smell of London and so were the rich, thinking it would stay that way they took no action. This is such an important factor because the ‘big stink’ actually reached the rich and houses of parliament, this caused them to realise how serious the problem was. This aspect alone helped the problem get to the noses of people who had power, so they themselves could make a change.
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
Marketing the hospital is big business and a necessary task to bring any providers to a depressed area. But one of Kutscher’s more implicating statements is that some rural hospitals have sponsored “foreign doctors with J1 visas” [ (2013) ]. Because of the shortage, and the recruiting efforts, EMMC has become an island of color in a sea of white. For many in the Bangor area this is a positive addition of culture and ethnicity to the area, but for the impoverished, white, critically ill patients and their families, it can be a culture shock and